Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper

Kuston Sultoni; Louisa R Peralta; Wayne Cotton

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269759

. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0269759. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759

Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper

Kuston Sultoni ^1,^2,^*, Louisa R Peralta ¹, Wayne Cotton ¹

Editor: Walid Kamal Abdelbasset³

PMCID: PMC9714829 PMID: 36454897

Abstract

Background

Promoting physical activity (PA) for university students is essential as PA levels decrease during the transition from secondary to higher education. Providing technology-supported university courses targeting students’ PA levels may be a viable option to combat the problem. However, it is still unclear how and what technologies should be implemented in university courses to promote PA. This study aims to create a series of design principles for technology-supported physical education courses that aim to increase university students’ PA knowledge, motivation and levels.

Method

The proposed methodology underpinning the research program is a seven-phase design-based research (DBR) approach, with the seven phases encompassed in four sequential studies. These four studies are a systematic review, a qualitative focus group study, a pilot study, and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) study. The protocol paper aims to detail the plan for conducting the four studies in a comprehensive and transparent manner, thus contributing to the methodological evidence base in this field.

Discussion

Design principles generated from this project will contribute to the growing evidence focusing on effective design and implementation features. Future practitioners can also use these to develop physical education courses that aim to promote university students’ physical activity levels, knowledge, and motivation.

Trial registration

The RCT registry number: ACTRN12622000712707, 18/05/2022.

Background

Interventions focusing on increasing physical activity levels among various age groups, from early childhood to the elderly, have been growing over the last five years [1–4]. These studies have suggested that targeting physical activity at different time points across the lifespan is essential, especially when there is a transition related to educational events [5] (e.g., the transition from preschool to primary school [6–8], from primary to high school [9–12], and from high school to college or university [13, 14]). Yet, the last opportunity to intervene before adulthood is the transition into post-secondary studies. Therefore, this period is ultimately the most important for establishing lifelong actions such as personal, psychosocial, and movement behaviours for those who have not yet established them [15–17]. Physical activity tends to significantly decrease when graduating from high school and enrolling in universities [18] and among first-year university students [15, 19], with 80% of university students not meeting physical activity recommendations during this transition [14]. These studies show that promoting physical activity among university students is essential.

Providing university courses that improve student’s physical activity levels may be a viable option, as universities can provide students with access to a range of sports facilities, highly educated facilitators, and appropriate technologies [20]. Furthermore, establishing and maintaining quality physical activity university courses has been a concern. As such, a guideline developed in the US and China [21–23] suggests that administration/support, assessment, instructional strategies, professionalism, learning environment, program staffing, and curriculum are essential facets that promote quality. Previous studies also suggest that providing strategies for administration and directors [24, 25], modelling the development and support for course instructors [26], and utilising technology [27–29] can be viable strategies for increasing the quality of university courses that aim to improve the physical activity levels of university students.

There are various factors that influence physical activity behaviour in young adults [30]. Gaining knowledge of physical activity is considered one of the principle determining factors of physical activity in university-age students [31]. A cross-sectional study involving 258 adults in Hong Kong found that physical activity knowledge had a positive correlation with levels of physical activity, with this correlation strongest among the university student participants [32]. This finding is also supported by a Chinese cross-sectional study recruiting 9826 university students [33], with this study finding that knowledge of the physical activity guidelines was correlated with higher physical activity levels. Thus, physical activity knowledge should be considered as one of the learning outcomes of university courses that promote physical activity in a university setting.

Another important factor that is widely known to be associated with physical activity is motivation [34, 35]. Exercise motivation plays an important role in long-term physical activity behaviour [36]. Systematic reviews examine relationships between motivation and physical activity [37] and examine the effects of physical activity interventions underpinned by motivational principles [38] show that motivation significantly increases physical activity levels [37, 38]. Furthermore, a cross-sectional study involving 1079 participants aged 24±9 years showed that motivation for physical activity and exercise is associated with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise [39]. This finding is supported by an observational study using a web-based survey involving 320 wearable activity monitor users, where motivational regulation was correlated with moderate to vigorous physical activity [40]. Hence, having motivational content and outcomes as part of a university course that promotes physical activity in university settings should also be considered.

Research focusing on technologies that promote university students’ physical activity levels is gaining more attention. The most common strategy utilised in previous studies has been internet websites [41–49]. Seven out of nine (78%) studies utilising internet websites have been successful in increasing physical activity levels [43–49]. Another common form of technology utilised to enhance university students’ physical activity levels are wearable devices. These have ranged from pedometers [50–53] to activity trackers (Misfit, Jawbone UP, Polar M400, Fitbit, and MyWellness Key) [54–58]. Two of four (50%) studies that utilised a pedometer successfully increased participants mean steps per day [53, 59]. Two of five (40%) studies using activity trackers also increased student’s physical activity levels [55, 58]. Social media, smartphone applications or mobile apps have also become prominent as a technology to enhance the physical activity levels of university students [60–66]. Three of seven (43%) studies using mobile phone apps have successfully increased students’ physical activity levels [62, 63, 65]. However, it is important to highlight that most of the studies (19 of 25 (76%)) utilising technology (internet website, wearable device, mobile phone apps) that aim to increase student’s physical activity levels in university settings were non-course-based interventions. That means only six of 25 (24%) studies were course-based interventions, with four of these six studies significantly increasing students’ physical activity levels. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what design principles and features of technology are the most effective to support the implementation of these course-based interventions to increase students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels. There is also far too little attention paid to creating a set of design principles that can direct future improvement endeavours in this space [67]. Hence, research that focuses on development goals is needed to incorporate technology into courses at universities that aim to increase students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels.

The aim of this design-based research project is to create a series of design principles, develop an intervention based on the design principles and measure the impact of the intervention [67–69]. The impact of the intervention will be measured through an increase in physical activity levels, knowledge, and motivation. The purpose of this protocol paper is to fully detail the plan for conducting a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical activity course for increasing university students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels in a comprehensive, transparent manner, contributing to the methodological evidence base in this field.

Aims and objectives

The primary purpose of this research project is to create a series of design principles which can guide the development of a technology-supported physical activity course to increase university student’s physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels.

Methods

Study design

The research methodology for the study was guided by the Design-Based Research model [67], which simplifies collaboration with practitioners by integrating known and hypothetical design principles with technological affordances to render plausible solutions to these problems. Design-based research was heralded as a practical research methodology that could effectively bridge the chasm between research and practice in formal education [70], including physical education [71]. Design-based research can also be used as an alternate model for enquiry in the field of educational technology to make future progress in improving teaching and learning through technology [72]. The original Reeves design-based research model contains four steps (see Fig 1). However, in this study, the four steps will be represented in seven phases to accommodate the cyclic nature of design-based research (see Fig 2). This adaptation has been made because the nature of design-based research is the flexibility of the process that still have some principles [73]. McKenney and Reeves [73] have highlighted that design-based research use: 1) scientific knowledge to ground design work; 2) produce scientific knowledge; 3) three main phases (analysis, design, and evaluation phase); and 4) development of both interventions in practise and reusable knowledge. Therefore, the seven phases in this study are: 1) needs analysis and creation of initial design principles from a systematic literature review and focus group discussions; 2) development of a prototype technology-supported physical education course based on initial design principles; 3) evaluation and testing of prototype technology-supported physical education course (pilot study); 4) revision of initial design principles; 5) modification of the prototype technology-supported physical education course based on revised design principles; 6) evaluation and testing of modified prototype technology-based physical education course (randomised controlled trial); and 7) the final design principles. These seven phases will be housed in four sequential studies. These are a: 1) systematic review; 2) qualitative focus group study; 3) pilot study, and 4) randomised controlled trial study. This project has obtained ethics approval from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Project No. 2021/071; Project No. 2021/935). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the study commenced.

Fig 2 — The four studies are identified in italics.

Location and setting

This study will be conducted at the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesia University of Education) located in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia (www.upi.edu). The physical activity education course of interest is offered to first year and second-year undergraduate students as required (mandatory) learning or as an elective. To clarify, there is also university courses called Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programs that aim to educate preservice physical education teachers to prepare them to become beginning teachers in school settings. However, the physical activity education course (herein now called physical education course) in this study is unit of study with the main outcome is to promote active lifestyles or lifelong physical activity for all undergraduate students. Based on the higher education system in Indonesia, the workload used in the physical education course is a semester credit unit. In this system, one credit is equivalent to 48 hours/semester, 16 meetings, and 3 hours for each meeting consisting of scheduled lecture activities, structured, and independent assignments. The credit system is different from European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) which has a workload of 25 hours of study or 2.5 hours for 10 meetings per semester. When the credit system is changed to the ECTS, the students’ workloads for this course is 48:25 x 2 credits = 3.84 ECTS.

Phase 1. Needs analysis and creation of initial design principles

The purpose of Phase 1 is the creation of the initial design principles from the systematic literature review and needs analysis with key stakeholders. In addition, this phase will also identify appropriate technologies that will facilitate the implementation of a physical education course for increasing university students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels.

Systematic review (study I)

Purpose. This systematic review aims to form initial design principles focusing on implementing a physical education course for university settings to improve university students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels.

The first study in this project is systematic literature review aims to identify, critically appraise, and summarise the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of technology-supported university courses for increasing the physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels of university students. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [74]. The protocol of the study will be registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020210327). The process will involve planning a review, searching, and selecting studies, data collection, risk of bias assessment, analysis, and interpreting results. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) formula is used in this study to limit the question. The population is a university student or college students, or students who enrol in higher institution. Intervention is technology-based physical education or course-based intervention using technology. Technology is limited to online delivery, learning management system, website, wearable device, mobile application, activity tracker, and blended learning using technology. Comparation is studies with a control group including RCT or Non-RCT or quasi-experimental study describing interventions using technology-supported university courses targeting physical activity among university students. The primary outcome will be physical activity levels. Eight electronic bibliographic databases will be sought including CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020. 10 item quality assessment scale derived from Van Sluijs and colleagues [75] will be used to measure the quality of selected studies.

Qualitative focus group study (study 2)

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to confirm and add to the initial series of design principles to inform the design of Phase 2.

Setting access and recruitment. There will be three focus group discussions with key stakeholders. These stakeholders will include administrators and directors, course instructors/lecturers and students. The first discussion is with key stakeholders such as the curriculum development team, course coordinator and the Dean of the Faculty of Sport and Health Education. The discussion will be guided by a form to confirm that the content of the initial design principles is appropriate considering the learning outcomes and current technologies provided and supported by the university. The second focus group discussion is with lecturers who teach the physical education course. This discussion will be guided with lecturers being asked to answer questions focusing on the system and content of the course. The third focus group discussion will be with students who have previously enrolled in and completed the physical education course with questions focusing on the best technologies for their learning. The semi-structured focus group discussion guidelines are attached as supporting information file [see S1 Appendix].

Participation in these focus groups is voluntary. All participants will be invited using email and will be given the Participant Information Statements. A signed Participant Consent Form will be needed to participate in the focus group discussion.

Sampling. There will be three focus group discussions. In the first focus group discussion, four key stakeholders or policy makers will be invited to participate: 1) a physical education course lecturer; 2) the course coordinator; 3) a member of university curriculum development team; and 4) the Dean of the Faculty of Sport and Health Education. The second focus group discussion will involve six randomly selected lecturers from 30 lecturers who currently implement the physical education course. The third focus group discussion will involve 12 undergraduate students who have enrolled in the physical education course previously. The size of sample in the focus group discussion 1, 2 and 3 will enable data saturation.

Data analysis. Qualitative data from the focus group discussions will be analysed using the thematic analysis [76]. The analysis will involve transcribing the data before coding individual comments into categories determined by the research question. Each category will then be sub-coded and investigated in more detail. This method will enable issues and themes in the data to emerge and from these issues and themes, conclusions will be able to be made to reinforce the initial design principles derived from the systematic review.

Phase 2. Development of a prototype technology-supported physical education course based on initial design principles

The purpose of Phase 2 is to develop a prototype based on the initial design principles from Phase 1. The design includes content and technical development. Content design will be reviewed by three physical education experts. Content development will produce a paper-based prototype of the technology that will show how the technology aligned with the initial design principles. While technical development will produce the design of a Learning Management System (LMS) and mobile application (App). Technical design includes User Experience (UX) represented by the flow chart of how LMS and App work and User Interface (UI) represented by a series of visual design on how LMS and App looks like. The next step is producing the LMS, and App based on technical development by IT developers to create a prototype for the technology-based physical education course.

Phase 3. Evaluation and testing of prototype technology-supported physical education course

The purpose of Phase 3 is to test and evaluate the prototype from Phase 2. In this phase, a pilot study will be conducted to implement and test the prototype from the previous phases to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial that will be conducted in Phase 6.

Pilot study (study 3)

Purpose. The pilot study aims to test the prototype with a small sample size to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

Setting access and recruitment. The pilot study will include two classes of a semester physical education course. One of the classes will be the intervention group, and the other will be the control group. The intervention group will receive a course incorporated with the prototype for the technology-supported physical education course. The control group will receive the usual physical education course. Three outcomes will be measured pre- and post-intervention. This phase also includes developing the research instruments to determine validity and reliability.

There are two recruitment processes in this pilot study including the lecturer and students. In the lecturer recruitment step, the researcher will invite a lecturer who participated in the focus group discussion in Phase 1. The lecturer will be included in the pilot study if he/she meets the following inclusion criteria: 1) run two classes of the physical education course; 2) willing to take part in lecturer training before the physical education course class begins; and 3) willing to invite their students to take part in the pilot study.

The lecturer will invite their students to participate in the pilot study in the first week of the physical education course. Participation in this pilot study is voluntary, and all participants will be given Participant Information Statements and invited to sign a Participant Consent Form to participate. Participation or non-participation in this study will not affect students’ scores in physical education courses. The number of students in each class varies from 20–50 students. Students will be included in the pilot study if they meet the following inclusion criteria: 1) students enrolled in a physical education course with a lecturer who will participate in the pilot study; 2) voluntarily participate in the pilot study; and 3) owns an android smartphone.

Intervention. The intervention group will receive 16 weeks of the physical education course incorporated with the prototype of technology-supported physical education course implemented by their lecturer. The intervention and control group will have the same content (See Table 1); however, the intervention group will have access to the prototype of technology. The prototype will be developed in Phase 2 using the initial design principles generated from the focus group discussions and systematic review in Phase 1.

Table 1. Course content for intervention and control group.

Week	Intervention Group	Control Group
1	Course Introduction	Course Introduction
2	Physical activity, Healthy and active lifestyle knowledge	Physical activity, Healthy and active lifestyle knowledge
3	Health-related physical fitness knowledge	Health-related physical fitness knowledge
4	Goal setting in Physical activity and fitness	Goal setting in Physical activity and fitness
5	Body composition	Body composition
6	Aerobic fitness	Aerobic fitness
7	Muscular fitness and flexibility	Muscular fitness and flexibility
8	Midsemester exam	Midsemester exam
9	Nutrition: Healthy eating	Nutrition: Healthy eating
10	Aerobic activity- aerobic dance	Aerobic activity- aerobic dance
11	Aerobic activity- GPS-Based activity	Aerobic activity- GPS-Based activity
12	Muscular strengthening	Muscular strengthening
13	Flexibility training	Flexibility training
14	Create an individual fitness training	Create an individual fitness training
15	Overcome physical activity barrier	Overcome physical activity barrier
16	Final exam	Final exam

Open in a new tab

Instruments. Data will be collected on student’s physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels, since the outcome of the course is changing student physical activity behaviour, knowledge and motivation to encourage long-life physical activity. Students’ physical activity level will be measured by using International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short form. Students’ physical activity knowledge will be measured by a questionnaire that will be developed in the pilot study based on literature [32, 33, 77]. A physical education expert will confirm content validity of the questionnaire and a reliability test of the instrument will be conducted in the pilot study. Students’ motivation for physical activity and exercise will be measured using The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2) [78]. The BREQ-2 consists of a 19-item questionnaire of 5 subscales (amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic regulation) to assess motivation to exercise. Construct validity studies showed that the BREQ-2 is valid for measuring exercise motivation among university students [79]. Validity and reliability of an Indonesian version of the BREQ-2 will be conducted in this pilot study.

Statistics and data analysis. Data will also be gathered from class observations and interviews with the lecturers and students. The class observation will use a semi-structured observation protocol based on ISO 9126 evaluation model for e-learning [80], focusing on functionality, reliability, efficiency, usability, maintainability, and portability of the prototypes that will be analysed for refining design principles.

Descriptive statistics will be presented (mean and standard deviation) for each group separately. Changes in physical activity level (MET: Metabolic Equivalent of Task), Physical activity knowledge and motivation from pre-test and post-test will be assessed using an ANCOVA. As this is a pilot study, the study will be underpowered; therefore, quantitative outcomes will be interpreted only as feasibility and acceptability measures.

Phase 4. Revise of initial design principles

The purpose of Phase 4 is to modify the initial design principles from Phase 1 based on data gathered from Phase 3 (pilot study, observation, measurement and feedback from lecturer and students). In this phase, the initial design principles will be revised to guide the prototype for technology-based physical education courses to determine the revised set of design principles.

Phase 5. Modification of prototype technology-supported physical education based on revised design principles

The purpose of Phase 5 is to modify the prototype based on Phase 4’s revised design principles. The revised design principles in the previous phase will be a foundation to redesign and build the technology-based physical education course. The next step is an expert review to find problems and recommendations for the technology. The final step in this phase is the refinement and modification of the technology prototype.

Phase 6. Evaluation and testing of modified prototype technology-supported physical education (randomised controlled trial)

In this phase, the refined and modified prototype will be tested and evaluated. The randomised controlled trial will be conducted to examine the effectiveness of a technology-supported physical education course on increasing university students’ physical activity levels, knowledge, and motivation.

Randomised controlled trial study (study 4)

This is a two-arm parallel, randomised controlled trial of a technology-supported physical education course intervention for students enrolled in an elective unit of study. The randomised controlled trial protocol is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). The RCT request number is ACTRN12622000712707, 18/05/2022. The RCT adheres to SPIRIT guidelines for reporting clinical trial study protocols [see S1 Table]. The SPIRIT schedule can be seen in the Fig 3.

Purpose. The randomised controlled trial aims to test and evaluate the modified prototype with a larger sample size.

Hypothesis. A technology-supported physical education course intervention will increase university student’s physical activity levels, knowledge and motivation more effectively than a non-technology-supported physical education courses.

Setting access and participants. The randomised controlled trial will include six lecturers and six classes (20 to 50 students each class). The recruitment process and intervention in the randomised controlled trial will be the modified version of the intervention from the pilot study. The six lecturers who agree to participate will be randomly assigned to intervention or control. The lecturer will invite their students to participate in the RCT in the first week of the physical education course. The decision for students who the comparator groups are (the control group) is based on their enrolment teacher. Participation in this randomised controlled trial is voluntary, and all lecturers and students will be given Participant Information Statements and be invited to sign a Participant Consent Form to participate.

Sample size including power calculation. The sample size calculation is based on the difference in change in the primary outcome (physical activity) from pre- to post-intervention in both groups (intervention and control group). Based on previous studies of technology-based physical activity interventions among university students, mean effect sizes of around d = 0.5 are expected in analyses [47, 81]. To detect such intervention effects in two-sided significance testing (α = .05) with a power of 80%, a sample size of 128 participants is required. Considering an expected study drop-out of about 20% and response rates of about 50%, 300 participants will be included in the study.

Number of participants

N = 6 physical education course lecturers

(a) n = 3 will be assigned to the intervention group,

(b) n = 3 will be assigned to the control group.

n = 300 students will be randomised 1:1 to either an intervention arm

(a) n = 150 a technology-supported physical education course (intervention group)

(b) n = 150 non-technology-supported physical education course (control group).

Teacher training. The lecturers in the intervention group will have teacher training for two days on how to deliver the technology-based physical education course prior to the intervention.

Intervention. The intervention group will receive 16 weeks of the physical education course incorporated with modified prototype from the pilot study in Phase 3.

Instrument. Data will be gathered using valid and reliable instruments developed from the pilot study and fidelity check and interviews to accommodate the final design principles.

Phase 7. Final design principles

This is the final phase of the study involving the entire data collected from Phases 1 to 6 to create a final series of design principles to aid future practitioners who will design, implement, and evaluate technology-supported physical education courses for university students.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a technology-supported physical education course designed to increase the students’ physical activity levels, knowledge and motivation. The intervention uses a design-based research approach to determine the technologies and features that are most effective in supporting university students in attaining physical activity and motivational outcomes at one university in Indonesia. Determining the technologies and features will help support and facilitate university students physical activity and motivation, will foster scaling-up and sustainability of this course in this setting and perhaps in other university settings, which is an important facet of publishing protocol papers [82, 83]. This manuscript will report on the systematic creation of a series of design principles using literature, focus group discussions with key stakeholders and modified through cycles of robust research testing. The systematic review study of this project has been completed and published [84]. Four design principles generated from the review will be confirmed and enhanced in the series of focus group discussions with key stakeholders (Phase 1) before the prototype is built from the initial design principles (Phase 2). The prototype will be tested and evaluated in the small sample pilot study to ensure prototype feasibility and validity (Phase 3). Then modifications will be performed based on the pilot study findings (Phase 4) with the modified prototype (Phase 5) tested and evaluated in a large randomised controlled trial study (Phase 6). The final design principles will then be created (Phase 7) to aid future research and practitioners who will design, implement, and evaluate university physical education courses. The design principles generated from this project will contribute to future practitioners designing, implementing, and evaluating technology-supported university physical education courses that aim to enhance university students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels. However, this project has limitations. The most important limitation lies in the fact that this project will be conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, where face-to-face activities in focus groups, as well as the pilot study and randomised controlled trial, will be restricted. In addition, the pandemic will also limit the use of objective measures of physical activity (i.e., accelerometer) as this instrument requires a face-to-face setting and application. Hence, only subjective measures of physical activity levels will be used in this study.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Semi-structured focus group discussion guidelines.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.6KB, docx)}

S1 Table. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(55.6KB, docx)}

S1 File

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(477.9KB, pdf)}

List of abbreviations

PA: Physical Activity
DBR: Design-Based Research
PETE: Physical Education Teacher Education
ECTS: European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome
RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial
LMS: Learning Management System
UX: User Experience
UI: User Interface
IPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire
BREQ-2: Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2
MET: Metabolic Equivalent of Task

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The primary author (KS) is supported by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education Scholarship/ Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan Republik Indonesia (LPDP RI) under a doctoral degree scholarship (202001222015860). LPDP RI have no authority in study design; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1.Wilson B, Barnett LM. Physical activity interventions to improve the health of children and adolescents in out of home care–A systematic review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;110:104765. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104765 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.S Oliveira J, Sherrington C, R Y Zheng E, Franco MR, Tiedemann A. Effect of interventions using physical activity trackers on physical activity in people aged 60 years and over: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(20):1188–94. Epub 20190809. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Hnatiuk J, Brown H, Downing K, Hinkley T, Salmon J, Hesketh K. Interventions to increase physical activity in children 0–5 years old: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and realist synthesis. Obesity reviews. 2019;20(1):75–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Kwan RYC, Salihu D, Lee PH, Tse M, Cheung DSK, Roopsawang I, et al. The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity. 2020;17:1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Gropper H, John JM, Sudeck G, Thiel A. The impact of life events and transitions on physical activity: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Oja L, Jürimäe T. Tracking of motor abilities, physical activity, and elementary motor skills during transition from pre-school to school. Acta Kinesiol Univ Tartuensis. 2001;6:91–101. [Google Scholar]
7.Sigmund E, Sigmundová D, Ansari WE. Changes in physical activity in pre‐schoolers and first‐grade children: longitudinal study in the Czech Republic. Child: care, health and development. 2009;35(3):376–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00945.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Jáuregui A, Villalpando S, Rangel-Baltazar E, Castro-Hernández J, Lara-Zamudio Y, Méndez-Gómez-Humarán I. The physical activity level of Mexican children decreases upon entry to elementary school. salud pública de méxico. 2011;53(3):228–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Garcia AW, Pender NJ, Antonakos CL, Ronis DL. Changes in physical activity beliefs and behaviors of boys and girls across the transition to junior high school. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1998;22(5):394–402. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(97)00259-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Chong KH, Parrish AM, Cliff DP, Kemp BJ, Zhang Z, Okely AD. Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep across the transition from primary to secondary school: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2020;23(5):498–505. Epub 20191209. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Arévalo D, Feu S, Sánchez E. Rural-urban differences in physical activity levels during the transition from primary education to high school. Revista espanola de salud publica. 2020;94(29):1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Shull ER, Dowda M, Saunders RP, McIver K, Pate RR. Sport participation, physical activity and sedentary behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2020;23(4):385–9. Epub 20191101. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.10.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Wengreen HJ, Moncur C. Change in diet, physical activity, and body weight among young-adults during the transition from high school to college. Nutrition Journal. 2009;8:32. Epub 20090722. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-8-32 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Owens CS, Crone D, De Ste Croix MBA, Gidlow CJ, James DVB. Physical activity and screen time in adolescents transitioning out of compulsory education: a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health. 2013;36(4):599–607. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Bray SR, Born HA. Transition to university and vigorous physical activity: implications for health and psychological well-being. Journal of American College Health. 2004;52(4):181–8. Epub 2004/03/17. doi: 10.3200/JACH.52.4.181-188 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Hussey T, Smith P. Transitions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2010;47(2):155–64. doi: 10.1080/14703291003718893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Terenzini PT, Rendon LI, Upcraft ML, Millar SB, Allison KW, Gregg PL, et al. The Transition to College: Diverse Students, Diverse Stories. Research in Higher Education. 1994;35(7). [Google Scholar]
18.Curry J, Jenkins JM, Weatherford J. Focus on Freshman: Basic Instruction Programs Enhancing Physical Activity. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(4). doi: 10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i4-6472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Kimball J, Jenkins J, Wallhead T. Influence of high school physical education on university students’ physical activity. European Physical Education Review. 2009;15(2):249–67. [Google Scholar]
20.Plotnikoff RC, Costigan SA, Williams RL, Hutchesson MJ, Kennedy SG, Robards SL, et al. Effectiveness of interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition and healthy weight for university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2015;12(1):45. Epub 2015/04/19. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0203-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4393577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.National Association for Sport Physical Education N. Appropriate instructional practice guidelines for higher education physical activity programs. Author. Reston, VA; 2009. [Google Scholar]
22.Stapleton D, Bulger SM. Adherence to appropriate instructional practice guidelines in US colleges’ and universities’ physical activity programs. Journal of Physical Education and Sport Management. 2015;6(7):47–59. doi: 10.33915/etd.4924 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.LI J. Discussion on Chinese Ordinary University Sports Teaching Pattern in the New Period. Cross-Cultural Communication. 2012;8(6):75–8. doi: 10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120806.8015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Brock SJ, Russell JA, Cosgrove B, Richards J. Administrative Strategies for Delivering High-Quality Instruction in a University-Based Physical Activity and Wellness Program. Kinesiology Review. 2018;7(4):345–9. doi: 10.1123/kr.2018-0040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Melton BF, Sampson Moore C, Hoffman B. Strategies for College and University Instructional Physical Activity Programs (IPAP) Directors. International Journal of Higher Education. 2016;5(1). doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v5n1p292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Russell JA. Graduate Teaching-Assistant Development in College and University Instructional Physical Activity Programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2011;82(4):22–32. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2011.10598610 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Bice MR, Ball JW, Hollman A, Adkins M. Health Technology Use: Implications for Physical Activity Behaviors Among College Students. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education. 2019;3(1):23–34. doi: 10.1080/24711616.2018.1516524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Cox DG, Krause JM, Smith MA. Technology in University Physical Activity Courses: A Mini-Ethnographic Case Study. The Qualitative Report. 2019;24(10):2554–74. 2309242791. [Google Scholar]
29.Melton BF, Burdette T. Utilizing Technology to Improve the Administration of Instructional Physical Activity Programs in Higher Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2011;82(4):27–32. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2011.10598611 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Nahas MV, Goldfine B, Collins MA. Determinants of physical activity in adolescents and young adults: The basis for high school and college physical education to promote active lifestyles. Physical Educator. 2003;60(1):42. . [Google Scholar]
31.Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical activity & behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, Calif.;: Sage; 1999. [Google Scholar]
32.Hui SS-C, Hui GP-S, Xie YJ. Association between physical activity knowledge and levels of physical activity in chinese adults with type 2 diabetes. PloS one. 2014;9(12):e115098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Abula K, Gröpel P, Chen K, Beckmann J. Does knowledge of physical activity recommendations increase physical activity among Chinese college students? Empirical investigations based on the transtheoretical model. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2018;7(1):77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2016.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? The lancet. 2012;380(9838):258–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist. 2000;55(1):68. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Richard M, Christina MF, Deborah LS, Rubio N, Kennon MS. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 1997;28(4):335–54. [Google Scholar]
37.Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2012;9(1):78–. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Knittle K, Nurmi J, Crutzen R, Hankonen N, Beattie M, Dombrowski SU. How can interventions increase motivation for physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health psychology review. 2018;12(3):211–30. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2018.1435299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Duncan LR, Hall CR, Wilson PM, Jenny O. Exercise motivation: a cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010;7(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Friel CP, Garber CE. An Examination of the Relationship Between Motivation, Physical Activity, and Wearable Activity Monitor Use. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2020;1(aop):1–8. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2019-0170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Hastie PA, Sinelnikov OA. The use of web-based portfolios in college physical education activity courses. Physical Educator. 2007;64(1):21. [Google Scholar]
42.Skar S, Sniehotta FF, Molloy GJ, Prestwich A, Araujo-Soares V. Do brief online planning interventions increase physical activity amongst university students? A randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2011;26(4):399–417. Epub 2010/09/11. doi: 10.1080/08870440903456877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Magoc D, Tomaka J, Bridges-Arzaga A. Using the web to increase physical activity in college students. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 2011;35(2):142–54. Epub 2011/01/06. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.2.2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Greene White AA, Hoerr SL, Lohse B, Schembre SM, Riebe D, et al. Impact of an online healthful eating and physical activity program for college students. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2012;27(2):e47–58. Epub 2012/11/02. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.110606-QUAN-239 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Hager R, George JD, LeCheminant JD, Bailey BW, Vincent WJ. Evaluation of a university general education health and wellness course delivered by lecture or online. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2012;26(5):263–9. Epub 2012/05/03. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.101020-QUAN-344 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Everhart K, Dimon C. The impact of course delivery format on wellness patterns of university students. Education. 2013;133(3):310–8. [Google Scholar]
47.Sriramatr S, Berry TR, Spence JC. An Internet-based intervention for promoting and maintaining physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. American journal of health behavior. 2014;38(3):430–9. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.38.3.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Kattelmann KK, White AA, Greene GW, Byrd-Bredbenner C, Hoerr SL, Horacek TM, et al. Development of Young Adults Eating and Active for Health (YEAH) internet-based intervention via a community-based participatory research model. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2014;46(2):S10–25. Epub 20140120. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.11.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Duan YP, Wienert J, Hu C, Si GY, Lippke S. Web-based intervention for physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake among Chinese university students: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2017;19(4):e106. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Perkins J. Baseline comparison and the effects of education and pedometer use on physical activity in undergraduate students in psychology and personal health courses. Ann Arbor: Central Michigan University; 2006. [Google Scholar]
51.LeCheminant JD, Smith JD, Covington NK, Hardin-Renschen T, Heden T. Pedometer use in university freshmen: a randomized controlled pilot study. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 2011;35(6):777–84. Epub 2012/01/19. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.6.13 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Sharp P, Caperchione C. The effects of a pedometer-based intervention on first-year university students: A randomized control trial. Journal of American College Health. 2016;64(8):630–8. Epub 2016/10/30. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1217538 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Miragall M, Dominguez-Rodriguez A, Navarro J, Cebolla A, Banos RM. Increasing physical activity through an Internet-based motivational intervention supported by pedometers in a sample of sedentary students: A randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2018;33(4):465–82. Epub 2017/09/08. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1368511 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Melton BF, Buman MP, Vogel RL, Harris BS, Bigham LE. Wearable devices to improve physical activity and sleep: a randomized controlled trial of college-aged African American women. Journal of Black Studies. 2016;47(6):610–25. [Google Scholar]
55.Rote AE. Physical activity intervention using Fitbits in an introductory college health course. Health Education Journal. 2017;76(3):337–48. doi: 10.1177/0017896916674505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
56.Maselli M, Gobbi E, Carraro A. Effectiveness of individual counseling and activity monitors to promote physical activity among university students. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2017;59(1):132–40. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07981-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Kim Y, Lumpkin A, Lochbaum M, Stegemeier S, Kitten K. Promoting physical activity using a wearable activity tracker in college students: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2018;36(16):1889–96. Epub 2018/01/11. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1423886 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Pope ZC, Barr-Anderson DJ, Lewis BA, Pereira MA, Gao Z. Use of Wearable Technology and Social Media to Improve Physical Activity and Dietary Behaviors among College Students: A 12-Week Randomized Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(19):3579. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Ornes L, Ransdell LB. Web-based physical activity intervention for college-aged women. International Electronic Journal of Health Education. 2007;10:126–37. [Google Scholar]
60.Melton BF, Bland H, Harris B, Kelly D, Chandler K. Evaluating a Physical Activity App in the Classroom: A Mixed Methodological Approach Among University Students. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(4). doi: 10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i4-7139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
61.Bruening M, Van Woerden I, Todd M, Brennhofer S, Laska MN, Dunton G. A mobile ecological momentary assessment tool (devilSPARC) for nutrition and physical activity behaviors in college students: a validation study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2016;18(7):e209. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Tong HL, Coiera E, Tong W, Wang Y, Quiroz JC, Martin P, et al. Efficacy of a Mobile Social Networking Intervention in Promoting Physical Activity: Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(3):e12181. Epub 2019/03/29. doi: 10.2196/12181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Pentakota N, Ramaswamy G, Thekkur P, Nair D, Chinnakali P, Kumar Saya G. Is a smartphone application effective in improving physical activity among medical school students? Results from a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2019:1–8. Epub 2019/03/29. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2018-0192 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Edney SM, Olds TS, Ryan JC, Vandelanotte C, Plotnikoff RC, Curtis RG, et al. A Social Networking and Gamified App to Increase Physical Activity: Cluster RCT. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2020;58(2):e51–e62. Epub 2020/01/22. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Wang M, Guo Y, Zhang Y, Xie S, Yu Z, Luo J, et al. Promoting healthy lifestyle in Chinese college students: evaluation of a social media-based intervention applying the RE-AIM framework. European journal of clinical nutrition. 2020;75(2):335–44. doi: 10.1038/s41430-020-0643-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Krzyzanowski MC, Kizakevich PN, Duren-Winfield V, Eckhoff R, Hampton J, Carr LTB, et al. Rams Have Heart, a Mobile App Tracking Activity and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption to Support the Cardiovascular Health of College Students: Development and Usability Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020;8(8):e15156. doi: 10.2196/15156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Reeves TC. Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International perspectives on instructional technology research for the 21st century. 2000;27:1–15. [Google Scholar]
68.Amiel T, Reeves TC. Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of educational technology & society. 2008;11(4):29–40. [Google Scholar]
69.Wang F, Hannafin MJ. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development. 2005;53(4):5–23. doi: 10.1007/BF02504682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
70.Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher. 2012;41:16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
71.Cotton W, Lockyer L, Brickell G, editors. A journey through a design-based research project2009 2009: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Google Scholar]
72.Barab S, Squire K. Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The journal of the learning sciences. 2004;13(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
73.McKenney S, Reeves TC. Educational design research. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: Springer; 2014. p. 131–40. [Google Scholar]
74.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Van Sluijs EM, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335(7622):703. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39320.843947.BE [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. 2012. [Google Scholar]
77.Morrow JR, Krzewinski-Malone JA, Jackson AW, Bungum TJ, Fitzgerald SJ. American Adults’ Knowledge of Exercise Recommendations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2004;75(3):231–7. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2004;26(2):191–6. [Google Scholar]
79.D’Abundo ML, Sidman CL, Milroy J, Orsini M, Fiala K. Construct validity of college students’ responses to the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire (BREQ-2). Recreational Sports Journal. 2014;38(1):40–9. [Google Scholar]
80.Chua BB, Dyson LE, editors. Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an e-learning system. Proc of ASCILITE; 2004. [Google Scholar]
81.Okazaki K, Okano S, Haga S, Seki A, Suzuki H, Takahashi K. Development and its Evaluation of the Distance and Interactive Proper System for College Students that Promotes Physical Activity through the Internet. Educational technology research. 2010;33(1–2):85–93. [Google Scholar]
82.Editors PM. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS medicine. 2011;8(2):e1001009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Eysenbach G. Peer review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open Access Journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2004;6(3):e136. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Sultoni K, Peralta L, Cotton W. Technology-Supported University Courses for Increasing University Students’ Physical Activity Levels: A Systematic Review and Set of Design Principles for Future Practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(11). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r001

Decision Letter 0

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

12 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-15083Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paperPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sultoni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliation.

2. Please expand the acronym “LPDP RI” as indicated in your financial disclosure so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

5. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The discussion section needs to be rewritten.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The subject of this study is judged to be very interesting. Physical activity is an important activity for all of us.

Approaching the seven research programs in this study is judged to be creative. However, it is judged that the discussion part is somewhat weak. Further discussion on the results of this study is needed. It is judged that the quality of the paper will be improved if the discussion of each research stage is added.

On page 9, please correct the notation of prior research in the form.

Reviewer #2: The endeavor of the authors are appreciated, as the topic seems to be relevant and promising. thanks alot for your protocol topic selection

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0269759. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

26 Aug 2022

Reviewer #1: The subject of this study is judged to be very interesting. Physical activity is an important activity

for all of us.

Approaching the seven research programs in this study is judged to be creative. However, it is judged that the

discussion part is somewhat weak. Further discussion on the results of this study is needed. It is judged that the

quality of the paper will be improved if the discussion of each research stage is added.

On page 9, please correct the notation of prior research in the form.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the discussion section (see Page 12 Line 21-29).

“The systematic review study of this project has been completed and published [85]. Four design

principles generated from the review will be confirmed and enhanced in the series of focus group

discussions with key stakeholders (Phase 1) before the prototype is built from the initial design

principles (Phase 2). The prototype will be tested and evaluated in the small sample pilot study to ensure

prototype feasibility and validity (Phase 3). Then modifications will be performed based on the pilot

study findings (Phase 4) with the modified prototype (Phase 5) tested and evaluated in a large

randomised controlled trial study (Phase 6). The final design principles will then be created (Phase 7)

to aid future research and practitioners who will design, implement, and evaluate university physical

education courses.”

Reviewer #2: The endeavor of the authors are appreciated, as the topic seems to be relevant and promising.

thanks alot for your protocol topic selection

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter PLOS one Kuston (Final).pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(290.6KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r003

Decision Letter 1

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

22 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-15083R1Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paperPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sultoni,

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study is considered very interesting. Physical education in particular seems to be a subject that is being studied in all countries. However, it is found that the reference in the introduction is incorrect.

At the end of the introduction, the word aim and the word purpose are used indiscriminately and redundantly, so they need to be corrected. In addition, the purpose of the study is explained again, and it is judged that the introduction has been sufficiently explained.

The research method was well described. No study results are presented. This is a very dangerous the paper. In the discussion, the results of the study were not compared and analyzed with previous studies. This study lacks the interpretation or argument of the researcher to clarify the necessity.

This study is considered insufficient for publication in the journal plos.

Reviewer #2: The study potocol was well-designed and the statistics are good

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0269759. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

30 Sep 2022

Rebuttal letter

Kuston Sultoni1,2*, Louisa Peralta1 and Wayne Cotton1

1Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney,

2Faculty of Sports and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,

*ksul5404@uni.sydney.edu.au

September 29, 2022

Dear Editorial Board of PLOS ONE,

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript PONE-D-22-15083 entitled “Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper.”

Please find our responses to the reviewers’ comments as follow:

Reviewer #1:

1. This study is considered very interesting. Physical education in particular seems to be a subject that is being studied in all countries.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

2. However, it is found that the reference in the introduction is incorrect.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. We have double-checked the reference list, we did not find the incorrect reference in the introduction.

3. At the end of the introduction, the word aim and the word purpose are used indiscriminately and redundantly, so they need to be corrected. In addition, the purpose of the study is explained again, and it is judged that the introduction has been sufficiently explained.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback on the last paragraph. We have revised the last paragraph to align with the feedback. It now reads:

The aim of this design-based research project is to create a series of design principles, develop an intervention based on the design principles and measure the impact of the intervention [68-70]. The impact of the intervention will be measured through an increase in physical activity levels, knowledge, and motivation. The purpose of this protocol paper is to fully detail the plan for conducting a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical activity course for increasing university students’ physical activity knowledge, motivation and levels in a comprehensive, transparent manner, contributing to the methodological evidence base in this field.

4. The research method was well described.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

5. No study results are presented. This is a very dangerous the paper.

Response:

As this paper is a study protocol paper, we consider it very low risk as no results are presented. Please check protocol paper guidelines on PlosOne: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information#loc-scope

6. In the discussion, the results of the study were not compared and analyzed with previous studies. This study lacks the interpretation or argument of the researcher to clarify the necessity. This study is considered insufficient for publication in the journal plos.

Response:

As this paper is a study protocol paper, therefore no study results are discussed in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2:

1. The study potocol was well-designed and the statistics are good

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Kuston Sultoni

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebutal Letter PLOS one Kuston (2) 30092022.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(230.3KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r005

Decision Letter 2

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

16 Nov 2022

Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper

PONE-D-22-15083R2<gwmw style="display:none;"></gwmw>

Dear Dr. Sultoni,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: thanks alot for your fast response

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269759.r006

Acceptance letter

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

22 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-15083R2

Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper

Dear Dr. Sultoni:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Appendix. Semi-structured focus group discussion guidelines.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.6KB, docx)}

S1 Table. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(55.6KB, docx)}

S1 File

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(477.9KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter PLOS one Kuston (Final).pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(290.6KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebutal Letter PLOS one Kuston (2) 30092022.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(230.3KB, pdf)}

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

[pone.0269759.ref001] 1.Wilson B, Barnett LM. Physical activity interventions to improve the health of children and adolescents in out of home care–A systematic review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;110:104765. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104765 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref002] 2.S Oliveira J, Sherrington C, R Y Zheng E, Franco MR, Tiedemann A. Effect of interventions using physical activity trackers on physical activity in people aged 60 years and over: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(20):1188–94. Epub 20190809. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref003] 3.Hnatiuk J, Brown H, Downing K, Hinkley T, Salmon J, Hesketh K. Interventions to increase physical activity in children 0–5 years old: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and realist synthesis. Obesity reviews. 2019;20(1):75–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref004] 4.Kwan RYC, Salihu D, Lee PH, Tse M, Cheung DSK, Roopsawang I, et al. The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity. 2020;17:1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref005] 5.Gropper H, John JM, Sudeck G, Thiel A. The impact of life events and transitions on physical activity: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref006] 6.Oja L, Jürimäe T. Tracking of motor abilities, physical activity, and elementary motor skills during transition from pre-school to school. Acta Kinesiol Univ Tartuensis. 2001;6:91–101. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref007] 7.Sigmund E, Sigmundová D, Ansari WE. Changes in physical activity in pre‐schoolers and first‐grade children: longitudinal study in the Czech Republic. Child: care, health and development. 2009;35(3):376–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00945.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref008] 8.Jáuregui A, Villalpando S, Rangel-Baltazar E, Castro-Hernández J, Lara-Zamudio Y, Méndez-Gómez-Humarán I. The physical activity level of Mexican children decreases upon entry to elementary school. salud pública de méxico. 2011;53(3):228–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref009] 9.Garcia AW, Pender NJ, Antonakos CL, Ronis DL. Changes in physical activity beliefs and behaviors of boys and girls across the transition to junior high school. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1998;22(5):394–402. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(97)00259-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref010] 10.Chong KH, Parrish AM, Cliff DP, Kemp BJ, Zhang Z, Okely AD. Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep across the transition from primary to secondary school: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2020;23(5):498–505. Epub 20191209. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref011] 11.Arévalo D, Feu S, Sánchez E. Rural-urban differences in physical activity levels during the transition from primary education to high school. Revista espanola de salud publica. 2020;94(29):1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref012] 12.Shull ER, Dowda M, Saunders RP, McIver K, Pate RR. Sport participation, physical activity and sedentary behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2020;23(4):385–9. Epub 20191101. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.10.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref013] 13.Wengreen HJ, Moncur C. Change in diet, physical activity, and body weight among young-adults during the transition from high school to college. Nutrition Journal. 2009;8:32. Epub 20090722. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-8-32 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref014] 14.Owens CS, Crone D, De Ste Croix MBA, Gidlow CJ, James DVB. Physical activity and screen time in adolescents transitioning out of compulsory education: a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health. 2013;36(4):599–607. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref015] 15.Bray SR, Born HA. Transition to university and vigorous physical activity: implications for health and psychological well-being. Journal of American College Health. 2004;52(4):181–8. Epub 2004/03/17. doi: 10.3200/JACH.52.4.181-188 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref016] 16.Hussey T, Smith P. Transitions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2010;47(2):155–64. doi: 10.1080/14703291003718893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref017] 17.Terenzini PT, Rendon LI, Upcraft ML, Millar SB, Allison KW, Gregg PL, et al. The Transition to College: Diverse Students, Diverse Stories. Research in Higher Education. 1994;35(7). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref018] 18.Curry J, Jenkins JM, Weatherford J. Focus on Freshman: Basic Instruction Programs Enhancing Physical Activity. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(4). doi: 10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i4-6472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref019] 19.Kimball J, Jenkins J, Wallhead T. Influence of high school physical education on university students’ physical activity. European Physical Education Review. 2009;15(2):249–67. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref020] 20.Plotnikoff RC, Costigan SA, Williams RL, Hutchesson MJ, Kennedy SG, Robards SL, et al. Effectiveness of interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition and healthy weight for university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2015;12(1):45. Epub 2015/04/19. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0203-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4393577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref021] 21.National Association for Sport Physical Education N. Appropriate instructional practice guidelines for higher education physical activity programs. Author. Reston, VA; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref022] 22.Stapleton D, Bulger SM. Adherence to appropriate instructional practice guidelines in US colleges’ and universities’ physical activity programs. Journal of Physical Education and Sport Management. 2015;6(7):47–59. doi: 10.33915/etd.4924 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref023] 23.LI J. Discussion on Chinese Ordinary University Sports Teaching Pattern in the New Period. Cross-Cultural Communication. 2012;8(6):75–8. doi: 10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120806.8015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref024] 24.Brock SJ, Russell JA, Cosgrove B, Richards J. Administrative Strategies for Delivering High-Quality Instruction in a University-Based Physical Activity and Wellness Program. Kinesiology Review. 2018;7(4):345–9. doi: 10.1123/kr.2018-0040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref025] 25.Melton BF, Sampson Moore C, Hoffman B. Strategies for College and University Instructional Physical Activity Programs (IPAP) Directors. International Journal of Higher Education. 2016;5(1). doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v5n1p292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref026] 26.Russell JA. Graduate Teaching-Assistant Development in College and University Instructional Physical Activity Programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2011;82(4):22–32. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2011.10598610 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref027] 27.Bice MR, Ball JW, Hollman A, Adkins M. Health Technology Use: Implications for Physical Activity Behaviors Among College Students. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education. 2019;3(1):23–34. doi: 10.1080/24711616.2018.1516524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref028] 28.Cox DG, Krause JM, Smith MA. Technology in University Physical Activity Courses: A Mini-Ethnographic Case Study. The Qualitative Report. 2019;24(10):2554–74. 2309242791. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref029] 29.Melton BF, Burdette T. Utilizing Technology to Improve the Administration of Instructional Physical Activity Programs in Higher Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2011;82(4):27–32. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2011.10598611 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref030] 30.Nahas MV, Goldfine B, Collins MA. Determinants of physical activity in adolescents and young adults: The basis for high school and college physical education to promote active lifestyles. Physical Educator. 2003;60(1):42. . [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref031] 31.Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical activity & behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, Calif.;: Sage; 1999. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref032] 32.Hui SS-C, Hui GP-S, Xie YJ. Association between physical activity knowledge and levels of physical activity in chinese adults with type 2 diabetes. PloS one. 2014;9(12):e115098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref033] 33.Abula K, Gröpel P, Chen K, Beckmann J. Does knowledge of physical activity recommendations increase physical activity among Chinese college students? Empirical investigations based on the transtheoretical model. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2018;7(1):77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2016.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref034] 34.Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? The lancet. 2012;380(9838):258–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref035] 35.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist. 2000;55(1):68. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref036] 36.Richard M, Christina MF, Deborah LS, Rubio N, Kennon MS. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 1997;28(4):335–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref037] 37.Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2012;9(1):78–. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref038] 38.Knittle K, Nurmi J, Crutzen R, Hankonen N, Beattie M, Dombrowski SU. How can interventions increase motivation for physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health psychology review. 2018;12(3):211–30. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2018.1435299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref039] 39.Duncan LR, Hall CR, Wilson PM, Jenny O. Exercise motivation: a cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010;7(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref040] 40.Friel CP, Garber CE. An Examination of the Relationship Between Motivation, Physical Activity, and Wearable Activity Monitor Use. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2020;1(aop):1–8. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2019-0170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref041] 41.Hastie PA, Sinelnikov OA. The use of web-based portfolios in college physical education activity courses. Physical Educator. 2007;64(1):21. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref042] 42.Skar S, Sniehotta FF, Molloy GJ, Prestwich A, Araujo-Soares V. Do brief online planning interventions increase physical activity amongst university students? A randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2011;26(4):399–417. Epub 2010/09/11. doi: 10.1080/08870440903456877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref043] 43.Magoc D, Tomaka J, Bridges-Arzaga A. Using the web to increase physical activity in college students. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 2011;35(2):142–54. Epub 2011/01/06. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.2.2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref044] 44.Greene White AA, Hoerr SL, Lohse B, Schembre SM, Riebe D, et al. Impact of an online healthful eating and physical activity program for college students. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2012;27(2):e47–58. Epub 2012/11/02. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.110606-QUAN-239 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref045] 45.Hager R, George JD, LeCheminant JD, Bailey BW, Vincent WJ. Evaluation of a university general education health and wellness course delivered by lecture or online. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2012;26(5):263–9. Epub 2012/05/03. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.101020-QUAN-344 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref046] 46.Everhart K, Dimon C. The impact of course delivery format on wellness patterns of university students. Education. 2013;133(3):310–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref047] 47.Sriramatr S, Berry TR, Spence JC. An Internet-based intervention for promoting and maintaining physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. American journal of health behavior. 2014;38(3):430–9. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.38.3.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref048] 48.Kattelmann KK, White AA, Greene GW, Byrd-Bredbenner C, Hoerr SL, Horacek TM, et al. Development of Young Adults Eating and Active for Health (YEAH) internet-based intervention via a community-based participatory research model. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2014;46(2):S10–25. Epub 20140120. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2013.11.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref049] 49.Duan YP, Wienert J, Hu C, Si GY, Lippke S. Web-based intervention for physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake among Chinese university students: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2017;19(4):e106. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref050] 50.Perkins J. Baseline comparison and the effects of education and pedometer use on physical activity in undergraduate students in psychology and personal health courses. Ann Arbor: Central Michigan University; 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref051] 51.LeCheminant JD, Smith JD, Covington NK, Hardin-Renschen T, Heden T. Pedometer use in university freshmen: a randomized controlled pilot study. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 2011;35(6):777–84. Epub 2012/01/19. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.6.13 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref052] 52.Sharp P, Caperchione C. The effects of a pedometer-based intervention on first-year university students: A randomized control trial. Journal of American College Health. 2016;64(8):630–8. Epub 2016/10/30. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1217538 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref053] 53.Miragall M, Dominguez-Rodriguez A, Navarro J, Cebolla A, Banos RM. Increasing physical activity through an Internet-based motivational intervention supported by pedometers in a sample of sedentary students: A randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2018;33(4):465–82. Epub 2017/09/08. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1368511 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref054] 54.Melton BF, Buman MP, Vogel RL, Harris BS, Bigham LE. Wearable devices to improve physical activity and sleep: a randomized controlled trial of college-aged African American women. Journal of Black Studies. 2016;47(6):610–25. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref055] 55.Rote AE. Physical activity intervention using Fitbits in an introductory college health course. Health Education Journal. 2017;76(3):337–48. doi: 10.1177/0017896916674505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref056] 56.Maselli M, Gobbi E, Carraro A. Effectiveness of individual counseling and activity monitors to promote physical activity among university students. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2017;59(1):132–40. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07981-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref057] 57.Kim Y, Lumpkin A, Lochbaum M, Stegemeier S, Kitten K. Promoting physical activity using a wearable activity tracker in college students: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2018;36(16):1889–96. Epub 2018/01/11. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1423886 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref058] 58.Pope ZC, Barr-Anderson DJ, Lewis BA, Pereira MA, Gao Z. Use of Wearable Technology and Social Media to Improve Physical Activity and Dietary Behaviors among College Students: A 12-Week Randomized Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(19):3579. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref059] 59.Ornes L, Ransdell LB. Web-based physical activity intervention for college-aged women. International Electronic Journal of Health Education. 2007;10:126–37. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref060] 60.Melton BF, Bland H, Harris B, Kelly D, Chandler K. Evaluating a Physical Activity App in the Classroom: A Mixed Methodological Approach Among University Students. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(4). doi: 10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i4-7139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref061] 61.Bruening M, Van Woerden I, Todd M, Brennhofer S, Laska MN, Dunton G. A mobile ecological momentary assessment tool (devilSPARC) for nutrition and physical activity behaviors in college students: a validation study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2016;18(7):e209. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref062] 62.Tong HL, Coiera E, Tong W, Wang Y, Quiroz JC, Martin P, et al. Efficacy of a Mobile Social Networking Intervention in Promoting Physical Activity: Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(3):e12181. Epub 2019/03/29. doi: 10.2196/12181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref063] 63.Pentakota N, Ramaswamy G, Thekkur P, Nair D, Chinnakali P, Kumar Saya G. Is a smartphone application effective in improving physical activity among medical school students? Results from a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2019:1–8. Epub 2019/03/29. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2018-0192 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref064] 64.Edney SM, Olds TS, Ryan JC, Vandelanotte C, Plotnikoff RC, Curtis RG, et al. A Social Networking and Gamified App to Increase Physical Activity: Cluster RCT. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2020;58(2):e51–e62. Epub 2020/01/22. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref065] 65.Wang M, Guo Y, Zhang Y, Xie S, Yu Z, Luo J, et al. Promoting healthy lifestyle in Chinese college students: evaluation of a social media-based intervention applying the RE-AIM framework. European journal of clinical nutrition. 2020;75(2):335–44. doi: 10.1038/s41430-020-0643-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref066] 66.Krzyzanowski MC, Kizakevich PN, Duren-Winfield V, Eckhoff R, Hampton J, Carr LTB, et al. Rams Have Heart, a Mobile App Tracking Activity and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption to Support the Cardiovascular Health of College Students: Development and Usability Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020;8(8):e15156. doi: 10.2196/15156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref067] 67.Reeves TC. Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International perspectives on instructional technology research for the 21st century. 2000;27:1–15. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref068] 68.Amiel T, Reeves TC. Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of educational technology & society. 2008;11(4):29–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref069] 69.Wang F, Hannafin MJ. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development. 2005;53(4):5–23. doi: 10.1007/BF02504682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref070] 70.Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher. 2012;41:16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref071] 71.Cotton W, Lockyer L, Brickell G, editors. A journey through a design-based research project2009 2009: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref072] 72.Barab S, Squire K. Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The journal of the learning sciences. 2004;13(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref073] 73.McKenney S, Reeves TC. Educational design research. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: Springer; 2014. p. 131–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref074] 74.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref075] 75.Van Sluijs EM, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335(7622):703. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39320.843947.BE [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref076] 76.Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref077] 77.Morrow JR, Krzewinski-Malone JA, Jackson AW, Bungum TJ, Fitzgerald SJ. American Adults’ Knowledge of Exercise Recommendations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2004;75(3):231–7. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref078] 78.Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2004;26(2):191–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref079] 79.D’Abundo ML, Sidman CL, Milroy J, Orsini M, Fiala K. Construct validity of college students’ responses to the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire (BREQ-2). Recreational Sports Journal. 2014;38(1):40–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref080] 80.Chua BB, Dyson LE, editors. Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an e-learning system. Proc of ASCILITE; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref081] 81.Okazaki K, Okano S, Haga S, Seki A, Suzuki H, Takahashi K. Development and its Evaluation of the Distance and Interactive Proper System for College Students that Promotes Physical Activity through the Internet. Educational technology research. 2010;33(1–2):85–93. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref082] 82.Editors PM. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS medicine. 2011;8(2):e1001009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref083] 83.Eysenbach G. Peer review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open Access Journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2004;6(3):e136. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0269759.ref084] 84.Sultoni K, Peralta L, Cotton W. Technology-Supported University Courses for Increasing University Students’ Physical Activity Levels: A Systematic Review and Set of Design Principles for Future Practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(11). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Using a design-based research approach to develop a technology-supported physical education course to increase the physical activity levels of university students: Study protocol paper

Kuston Sultoni

Louisa R Peralta

Wayne Cotton

Roles

Abstract

Background

Method

Discussion

Trial registration

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

Study design

Fig 1. Reeves’ original design-based research model (2000).

Fig 2. Diagrammatic overview of how design-based research methodology informed this research project.

Location and setting

Phase 1. Needs analysis and creation of initial design principles

Systematic review (study I)

Qualitative focus group study (study 2)

Phase 2. Development of a prototype technology-supported physical education course based on initial design principles

Phase 3. Evaluation and testing of prototype technology-supported physical education course

Pilot study (study 3)

Table 1. Course content for intervention and control group.

Phase 4. Revise of initial design principles

Phase 5. Modification of prototype technology-supported physical education based on revised design principles

Phase 6. Evaluation and testing of modified prototype technology-supported physical education (randomised controlled trial)

Randomised controlled trial study (study 4)

Fig 3. The SPIRIT schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for the technology-supported physical education course.

Phase 7. Final design principles

Discussion

Supporting information

List of abbreviations

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Roles

Acceptance letter

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases