Ключевые слова

Ageing, technology, teaching-learning, older adults, youth, intergenerational programmes, intergenerational relationships, communication

Резюме

Nowadays, as ageing increases in Western societies it has become more evident that multiple generations are ageing concurrently at any given time in history. Therefore, ageing must be approached as a multi-generational phenomenon, not just as a question of elders. In this context, situations that engender increased interactions between generations are garnering more attention. There is a growing emphasis on expanding the role of technology in intergenerational programmes, within the field of intergenerational studies. Consequently, this paper is focused on education and learning processes within intergenerational programmes with a strong technology component. Information from a total of 46 intergenerational programmes from 11 countries has been gathered through a survey. Level of impact, status of generational groups, and centrality of technology have been appraised for all programmes in the sample. Technology learning-teaching constitute the main area of intended impact of these programmes. However, the surveyed programmes employ as well a wide range of strategies to facilitate intergenerational communication, cooperation and relationship formation between generations involved. Interest of programmes examined does not just consist of teaching the use technology but of experimenting with technology in different forms and functions and exploring the positive potential for enhancing intergenerational relationships

Ссылки

AARP (2012). Connecting Generations. [A Report of Selected Findings from a Survey and Focus Groups Conducted by Microsoft and AARP]. (http://goo.gl/Kcn0Pk) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Bailey, C. (2009). Reverse Intergenerational Learning: A Missed Opportunity? AI & Society, 23(1), 111-115. (http://goo.gl/hDgcEt). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0169

Link Google Scholar

Bishop, J.D., & Moxley, D.P. (2012). Promising Practices Useful in the Design of an Intergenerational Program: Ten Assertions Guiding Program Development. Social Work in Mental Health, 10(3), 283-204. (http://goo.gl/ZfN6Pp). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2011.649637

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Brophy, J., & Bawden, D. (2005). Is Google Enough? Comparison of an Internet Search Engine with Academic Library Resources. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6), 498-512. (http://goo.gl/J89Msx). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530510634235

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Carroll, J., Convertino, G., Farroq, U., & Rosson, M. (2011). The Firekeepers: Aging Considered as Resource. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11, 7-15. (http://goo.gl/NPzlRU). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0229-9

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Chen, Y., Wen, J., & Xie (2012). I Communicate with my Children in the Game: Mediated Intergenerational Family Relationships through a Social Networking Game. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(1). (http://goo.gl/LcQRnr) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Chiong, C. (2009). Can Video Games Promote Intergenerational Play & Literacy Learning? Report from a Research and Design Workshop. (http://goo.gl/S2kvyE) (20-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

CLD Standards for Scotland (2010). Mapping the Future: An Intergenerational Project. (http://goo.gl/IcZWrX) (20-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Davis, H., Vetere, F., Francis, P., Gibbs, M., & Howard, S. (2008). I Wish We Could Get Together: Exploring Intergenerational Play Across a Distance via a ‘Magic Box’. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6(2), 191-210. (http://goo.gl/fas2G4). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15350770801955321

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

ECIL. (2013). ECIL Project. Best Practice Guidelines. Unpublished Manuscript. Centre for Intergenerational Practice: The Beth Johnson Foundation, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.

Link Google Scholar

EMIL. (2013). EMIL’s European Year 2012 Roundtable Events: Final Report. (http://goo.gl/3BK5qB) (01-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

EU Kids Online. (2011). EU Kids Online Final Report. (http://goo.gl/tHHFd6) (15-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

European Commission (2012). ICT for Seniors’ and Intergenerational Learning. (http://goo.gl/McdPPO) (06-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Feist, H. Parker, K., Hugo, G. (2012). Older and Online: Enhancing Social Connections in Australian Rural Places. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(1). (http://goo.gl/G79PZt) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Figuer, C., Malo, S., & Bertran, I. (2010). Cambios en las relaciones y satisfacciones intergeneracionales asociados al uso de las TIC. Intervención Psicosocial, 19(1), 27-39. (http://goo.gl/7keoZE). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/in2010v19n1a5

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Flora, P.K., & Faulkner, G.E. (2007). Physical Activity: An Innovative Context for Intergenerational Programming. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(4), 63-74. (http://goo.gl/p7lmQU). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J194v04n04_05) (02-02-15).

Link Google Scholar

Fricke, A., Marley, M., Morton, A., & Thomé, J. (2013). The Mix@ges Experience: How to Promote Intergenerational Bonding through Creative Digital Media. (http://goo.gl/QaquBx) (06-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Gershenfeld, A., & Levine, M. (2012). Can Video Games Unite Generations in Learning? What Makers of Technology for Early Education can learn from ‘Sesame Street’. (http://goo.gl/Zok433) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Ghosh, R., Ratan, S., Lindeman, D., & Steinmetz, V. (2013). The New Era of Connected Aging: A Framework for Understanding Technologies that Support Older Adults in Aging in Place. (http://goo.gl/NjoVbS) (06-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Greene, J.C. (2008). Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. (http://goo.gl/Wr4vjH). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hall, T. (2012). Digital Renaissance: The Creative Potential of Narrative Technology in Education. Creative Education, 3(1), 96-100. (http://goo.gl/rdV8q3). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31016

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Harper, S. (2013). Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK – The Next 10 Years. (http://goo.gl/IIzZLq) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Hruschka, D.J., Schwartz, D., & al. (2004). Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307-331. (http://goo.gl/9e1kRK) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X04266540

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Jane, B., & Robbins, J. (2007). Intergenerational Learnings: Grandparents Teaching Everyday Concepts in Science and Technology. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1-18. (http://goo.gl/XQkdvh) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Jarrott. S.E. (2011). Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Content Analysis of Evaluation Research of Intergenerational Programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(1), 37-52. (http://goo.gl/aSEDGs) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2011.544594

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kaplan, M., & Sánchez, M. (2014). Intergenerational Programmes. In S. Harper, & K. Hamblin (Eds.), International Handbook on Ageing and Public Policy. (pp. 367-383). Cheltenham: Elgar.

Link Google Scholar

Large, A., Nesset, V., Beheshti, J., & Bowler, L. (2006). Bonded Design. A Novel Approach to Intergenerational Information Technology Design. Library & Information Science Research, 28(1), 64-82. (http://goo.gl/LJ9vgb). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.11.014

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Campanella, C. (n.d), Practical Resources for Assessing and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research Projects. (http://goo.gl/T2wY8I) (01-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., & al. (2013). Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. (http://goo.gl/PKHn8A) (06-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Pitt, J.C. (2000). Thinking about Technology: Foundations of the Philosophy of Technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.

Link Google Scholar

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Link Google Scholar

Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage.

Link Google Scholar

Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., & Madden, L. (2003). Older Adults’ Use of Information and Communications Technology in Everyday Life. Ageing & Society, 23(5), 561-582. (http://goo.gl/Fht3p8). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001302

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Smith, A. (2014). Older Adults and Technology Use. (http://goo.gl/8MA6Uv) (06-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Third, A., Richardson, I., Collin, P., Rahilly, K., & Bolzan, N. (2011). Intergenerational Attitudes towards Social Networking and Cybersafety: A Living Lab. (http://goo.gl/xxuCp6) (13-10-14).

Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Эта работа не имеет финансовой поддержки

Crossmark

Техническая спецификация

Получила: 29-10-2014

пересмотренный: 18-11-2014

Принятый: 02-02-2015

OnlineFirst: 15-04-2015

Дата публикации: 01-07-2015

Время пересмотра статьи: 20 дней | Среднее время пересмотра вопроса 45: 46 дней

Время принятия статьи: 96 дней | Время приема Номер 45: 127 дней

Время редактирования препринта: 199 дней | Выпуск препринта среднего времени редактирования 45: 247 дней

Время редактирования статьи: 244 дней | Среднее время редактирования журнала 45: 292 дней

метрика

Метрики этой статьи

Просмотров: 6727

Ознакомление с аннотациями: 5947

загрузки PDF-файлов: 780