Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 259–279 | Cite as

Overcoming the digital divide with a modern approach to learning digital skills for the elderly adults

  • Borka Jerman BlažičEmail author
  • Andrej Jerman Blažič
Article
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

As digital multimedia devices increasingly pervade people’s lives, including the lives of older adults, the need to provide relevant training for these age groups grows. Older adults, not due to their frailty or age, often find it difficult to use digital devices like smartphones, and they often lack the basic digital literacy required to use multimedia interactive devices with touchscreen technology. This is the major reason why they are experiencing the sharp digital divide in the twenty-first century. In this study, older adults from four European countries participated in a two-phase process: playing interactive games on a large touchscreen tablet and learning how to use a smartphone to access digital services. The attitudes and the difficulties associated with adopting the skills to operate the device and use the digital services were observed and discussed. The findings and recommendations for an effective approach to this problem are discussed at the end of the paper.

Keywords

Digital divide Digital literacy Older adults Education Digital skills Game playing 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Al Mahmud, A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Martens, J. (2008). Designing and evaluating the tabletop game experience for senior citizens. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction building bridges - NordiCHI '08 (pp. 215–222) https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/1049756/p403-al_mahmud2.pdf, accessed, February 5th, 2019.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1–10 http://www.ejbrm.com/vol2/v2-i1/issue1-art1-allan.pdf, accessed, May 11th, 2019.Google Scholar
  3. Baldaro, B., Tozzi, G., Codispoti, M., Montebarrocci, O., Barbagli, F., & Trobini, E. (2004). Aggressive and non violent videogames:Short-term psychological and cardiovascular effects on habitual players. Stress and Health, 20(4), 203–208.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1015 Accessed March 10th, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2009). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301 Accessed February 5th, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28–42 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ejed.12016, Accessed February 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Journal of Qualitative Research in Psychology, (2), 77–101 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235356393_Using_Thematic_Analysis_in_Psychology, Accessed February 12th, 2019.
  8. Bryant, A., & Chamaz, K. (2008). The sage handbook of grounded theory and coding. Sage P.C.Google Scholar
  9. BTOP, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, File 2013, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/asr_final_report.pdf by C Sterba, accessed 8.8.2018.
  10. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59, 661–686.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks, L. D. (2001). The importance of symbolic interaction grounded theory research on woman health. Journal Health Care for Women International, 22(1–2), 11–27 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/073993301300003054, Accessed February 5th, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2012). Designing training and instructional programs for older adults. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press https://www.crcpress.com/Designing-Training-and-Instructional-Programs-for-Older-Adults/Czaja-Sharit/p/book/9781439847879, Accessed September 9th, 2018.Google Scholar
  13. Damodaran, L., & Sandhu, J. (2016). The role of a social context for ICT learning and support in reducing digital inequalities for older ICT users. International Journal of Learning Technology, [online] 11(2), 156–175. http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/27281/1/4898_Sandhu.pdf. Accessed February 12th, 2019.
  14. Delello, J. A., & McWhorter, M. (2015). Reducing the digital divide, connecting older adults to iPAD technology. Journal of Applied Gerontology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815589985 Accessed February 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Digital Summit, 2017, https://www.eu2017.ee/political-meetings/tallinn-digital-summitGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterday, W. M., Rees, L. D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160.Google Scholar
  17. Eurostat 2016a, Digital economy and society statistics - households and individuals. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_individuals , Accessed May 8th 2018.
  18. Eurostat 2016b, A look at the life of the elderly in the EU today, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/elderly/index.htm, 2016, accessed 5.8.2018.
  19. Ferrari, A. (2012) Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks, Seville, Joint Research Center, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/.../FinalCSReport_PDFPARAWEB.pdf, Accessed, June 2nd 2019.
  20. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerling, K., Schulte, F., & Masuch, M. (2011). Designing and evaluating digital games for frail elderly persons. In ACM conference proceeding ACE (pp. 119–127). Lisbon: ACM Conference proceeding ACE http://hci.usask.ca/uploads/235-a62-gerling.pdf, Accessed October 28th 2018.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory (p. 215). Chicago, USA: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Hafeez, K., Foroudi, P., Nguyen, B., Gupta, S., & Alghatas, F. (2018). How do entrepreneurs learn and engage in an online community-of-practice? A case study approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(7), 714–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Häikiö, J., Wallin, A., Isomursu, M., Ailisto, H., Matinmikko, T., & Huomo, T. (2007). Touch-based user interface for elderly users. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services - MobileHCI '07 (pp. 289–296) https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378021, Accessed September 2nd, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, R., Betts, R. L., & Gardner, E. S. (2015). Older adult’s experience s and perceptions of digital technology: (dis)empowerement, wellbeing and inclusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loos, E. (2017). Exergamming: Meaningful play for older adults? Silver gaming:Seniors fun for seniors? In J. Zhou & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population, applications, services and context (pp. 254–265). Springer P.C.Google Scholar
  27. IJsselsteijn, W., Nap, H. H., & de Korte, Y. (2009). Senior gamers: Preferences, motivations and needs. Human-Technology Interaction, 8(4), 247–262 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yvonne_De_Kort2/publication/211726554_Senior_gamers_Preferences_motivations_needs/links/08fd63d3d562e70cabf7be6a/Senior-gamers-Preferences-motivations-needs.pdf, Accessed, August 8th 2018.Google Scholar
  28. Jahn, G., & Krems, J. F. (2013). Skill acquisition with text-entry interfaces:Particularly older adult users benefits from minimized information processing demands. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 32, 605–626. 101177/0733464811433485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jerman-Blažič, A., & Jerman-Blažič, B. (2015). Exploring and upgrading the educational business-game taxonomy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 303–340 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0735633115572959, accessed 4.11.2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaufman1, K., Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Sixsmith K., Mortenson, B., (2016), Older adults’ digital gameplay: Patterns, benefits, and challenges, Simulation & Gaming, 1–25 DOI: 10.1177/.Google Scholar
  31. Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2016). The impact of technology in older adults’ social isolation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knowles, H. G. W. (2011). A history of his thought. Education in a competitive and globalizing world. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the society. In C. Lanksear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concept, policies and practices (Vol. 156, p. 151). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, P., & Turner, B. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDougall J., Readman, M, Wilkinson, P. (2018), The uses of digital literacy, Learning, Media and Technology 43 (3), 263–279, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439884.2018.1462206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moghaddam, A. (2006). Coding issues in grounded theory issues. Educational Research, ERIC, 16(1), 52–66.Google Scholar
  37. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy ? Computers & Education, 59(3), 163–1078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2013). Internet adoption by elderly: Employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 708–726.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piantanida, M., Tananis, C., & Crubs, R. (2002). Claiming grounded theory for practice-based dissertation research: A think piece. In Paper presented at the conference on interdisciplinary qualitative studies, roundtable discussion. Athens, Georgia: http://www.coe.uga.edu/quig/pdf/claim.pdf, Accessed February 8th, 2019.
  40. Simbioza, G. (2018). http://www.simbioza.eu/sl/2017/predstavitev, Accessed, May 7th, 2018.
  41. Schreiber, R. S. (2001). Using grounded theory in nursing. PN Stern.Google Scholar
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage P.C.Google Scholar
  43. Toril, P., Reales, M. J., & Ballesteros. (2014). Video game training enhances cognition of older adults: A meta-analytical study. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsai, H. S., Schillar, R., & Cotton, R. S. (2017). Social support and playing around : An examination of how older adults acquire digital literacy with tablet computers. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 36(1), 20–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Hees, M. (1994). Oud geleerd, oud gedaan, optimalisering van handleidingen voor ouderen. Graduation thesis. Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  46. Van Staalduinen, J., & De Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking game design and learning outcomes. In M. Khyne (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future of education with video games (pp. 29–45). New York, USA: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  47. Van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills (p. 72). Computers in Human Behavior: A systematic literature review.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang, F., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2011). Computer game-based learning: Perceptions and experiences of senior Chinese adults. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40, 45–58.  https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., Salas, E., Burke, C., Estock, J., Orvis, K., & Conkey, C. (2008). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 229–243 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1517828, accessed 18.10.2018.Google Scholar
  50. Wortley, D., An, J. Y., & Heshmati, A. (2017). Tackling the challenge of the aging society: Detecting and preventing cognitive and physical decline through games and consumer technologies. Healthcare Informatics, 23(2), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zelinski, E. M., & Reyes, R. (2009). Cognitive benefits of computer games for older adults. Geronthechnology, 8(4), 220–235.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Post-graduate School Jožef Stefan and Institut Jožef StefanLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations