Intergenerational Learning in the Virtual World. Case of the European Community-Based Educational Project

• Authors: Marcin Rojek , Joanna Leek

Abstracts

EN

The paper focuses on presenting the research results of a community-based project titled ‘ICT Guides’, in which we investigated the features and functions of intergenerational learning with the use of ICT tools, which open the way for the virtual word. This was accomplished by surveying 267 youth and seniors attending 16 ICT courses in Gothenburg (Sweden), Sheffield (the United Kingdom), Madrid (Spain), and Berlin (Germany), with the use of a questionnaire. Both groups perceive intergenerational learning with the use of ICT as a chance to get to know the other group, despite age and cultural differences. With the use of ICT tools in intergenerational learning, mobile devices make up for a lack of a good command of language when communication problems occur, through application of texts, pictures, movies and music available online. ICT also facilitates mutual understanding and contributes to breaking the polarization that can occur between immigrant youth and unrelated adults, to the mutual benefit of both parties.

Keywords

EN

intergenerational cooperation; intergenerational learning; ICT tools; social polarization; intergenerational learning with ICT

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: The New Educational Review
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 56
• Pages: 88-100

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Marcin Rojek

author

Joanna Leek

References

• Alghasab M., Hardman J., Handley Z. (2019). Teacher-student interaction on wikis: Fostering collaborative learning and writing. Learning, culture and social interaction, 21 (2), pp. 10-20.
• Brown R., Ohsako T. (2003). A study of intergenerational learning programmes for schools promoting international education in developing countries through the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, “Journal of Research in International Education”, 2003/2.
• Cappell Ch., Heiner R.B. (1990). The intergenerational transmission of family Aggression, “Journal of Family Violence”, 1990/5.
• Cichy K.E., Smith G.C. (2011). Closing the generation gap. Using discussion groups to benefit older adults and college students, [in:] P. Hartman-Stein, A. LaRue (ed.), Enhancing Cognitive Fitness in Adults. A Guide to the Use and Development of Community-Based Programs, New York: Springer.
• Doumas D., Margolin G., John R.S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of aggression across three generations, “Journal of Family Violence”, 1996/9.
• Davis L., Larkin E., Graves S.B. (2003). Intergenerational learning through play, “International Journal of Early Childhood”, 2003/34.
• Dutton H., Blank G., Gorselj D. (2014). Cultures of the Internet: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2013 Report, [available:] http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OxIS-2013.pdf, access: 22.01.2019.
• Ebrahimi M., Saives A.L., Holford,W.D. (2008). Qualified ageing workers in the knowledge management process of high-tech businesses, “Journal of Knowledge Management”, 2008/2(12), pp. 124-140.
• Drury J. (2003). Adolescent Communication with Adults in Authority, “Journal of Language and Social Psychology”, 2003/22, pp. 66-72.
• Granville G. (2002). A Review of Intergenerational Practice in the UK, Stoke-on-Trent: Beth Johnson Foundation.
• Hatton-Yeo A. (2006). Intergenerational Programmes: an Introduction and Examples of Practice, Stoke-on-Trent: Beth Johnson Foundation.
• Hertlein, K.M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. “Family Relations”, 61, 374-387.
• Jecker N.S. (1992). Intergenerational justice and the family, “Journal of Value Inquiry”, 1992/26.
• Keith P., Wacker R. (2002). Grandparent Visitation Rights: An Inappropriate Intrusion or Appropriate Protection?, “International Journal of Aging and Human Development”, 2002/4, pp. 191-204.
• Leek J., Rojek M. (2019). ‘ICT Guides’ project as an example of educational support of young immigrants through intergenerational learning and ICT tools. In E. Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, H.J. Abs, & P. Müller (Eds.), Thematic papers based on the Conference “Migration, Social Transformation, and Education for Democratic Citizenship” (pp. 87-106). University of Duisburg-Essen: DuEPublico. doi: 10.17185/duepublico/47639.
• Leek J., Rojek M. (2017). Intergenerational learning with ICT tools to reduce early school leaving among immigrant pupils, “Littera Scripta”, no 2(10)/2017, pp. 34-48.
• Lundt J., Vanderpan T. (2000). It computes when young adolescents teach senior citizens. Middle School Journal 31(4), pp. 18-22.
• Mazor A., Tal I. (1996). Intergenerational transmission. The individuation process and the capacity for intimacy of adult children of holocaust survivors, “Contemporary Family Therapy”, 1996/18.
• McClusky H. (1990). The community of generations. A goal and a context for the education of persons in the later years, [in:] R.H. Sherron, D.B. Lumsden (ed.), Introduction to Educational Gerontology, New York: Taylor & Francis
• McConatha J.T., F. Schnell K. Volkwein E. Leach (2003). Attitudes Toward Aging: A Comparative Analysis of Young Adults from the United States and Germany, “International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 2003/7, pp. 203-215.
• Newman S., Hatton-Yeo A. (2008), Intergenerational learning and the contributions of older people, “Ageing Horizons”, 2008/8.
• Noël S., de Broucker P. (2001), Intergenerational inequities. A comparative analysis of the influence of parents’ educational background on length of schooling and literacy skills, [in:] W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, N. Bottani (ed.), In Pursuit of Equity in Education: Using International Indicators to Compare Equity Policies, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Power M.B., Eheart B.K. (2001). Crisis in Foster Home: The Need for a Caring Community, “Children and Youth Services Review”, 2001/3(9-19), pp. 719-742.
• Raquel M., Osorio, A. (2016). Intergenerational learning with ICT. A case study. “Studia
• Pedagogica”, 2016 (2).
• Selwyn N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. “New Media and Society”, no 6(3), pp. 341-362.
• Silverstein M. (2004). Intergenerational relations across time and place, “Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics”, 2004/24.
• Storm R., Storm P. (2011). A paradigm for intergenerational learning, [in:] M. London (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stevenson, O. (2011). From public policy to family practices: Researching the everyday realities of families technology use at home. “Journal of Computer Assisted Learning”, 27, 336-346.
• Thomas, M. (2009). Think Community. An Exploration of the Links between Intergenerational Practice and Informal Adult Learning, Leicester: NIACE. Valentine G., Marsh J.,
• Pattie C. (2005). Children and Young People’s Home Use of ICT for Educational Purposes: The Impact on Attainment at Key Stages, London: Department for Educational and Skills.
• Van Rompaey, V., Roe, K., & Struys, K. (2002). Children’s influence on internet access at home: Adoption and use in the family context. Information, Communication & Society, 5, 189-206.
• Yin, R.K., (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series. Second ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/tner.19.56.2.07

Biblioteka Nauki

1967697