Computer Literacy Among the Generations: How Can Older Adults Participate in Digital Society?

  • Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha
  • Claudia Strobel-Dümer
Part of the Lifelong Learning Book Series book series (LLLB, volume 19)


The EU Memorandum on Lifelong Learning explicitly numbers IT skills among the "new basic skills for all". Without a basic computer literacy, participation in European societies is increasingly limited and people are excluded from a broad field of societal life. This chapter takes a look at the gap in computer literacy between generations and expounds the problems of that digital divide. There is empirical evidence on how older adults deal with new media and what preconditions and requirements support learning activities in that field. Forms of intergenerational learning can play an important role in this context. Anyhow, new media is also seen from a critical perspective as they include and exclude people at the same time and as even many younger people are not skilled enough to evaluate the risks and limits of digital media properly.


Lifelong Learning Digital Medium Digital Divide Migration Background Computer Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baacke, D. (1996). Medienkompetenz – Begrifflichkeit und sozialer Wandel. In A. von Rein (Ed.), Medienkompetenz als Schlüsselbegriff (pp. 112–124). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  2. Bers, M. U. (2010). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth’s positive development through technology. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 93–106.Google Scholar
  4. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 173–180.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2000). A Memorandum on lifelong learning. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Federal Statistical Office. (2011). Im Blickpunkt: Ältere Menschen in Deutschland und der EU. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  7. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from
  8. Hurrelmann, B. (2002). Zur historischen und kulturellen Relativität des „gesellschaftlichen handlungsfähigen Subjekts“ als normative Rahmenidee für Medienkompetenz. In N. Groeben & B. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Medienkompetenz. Voraussetzungen, Dimensionen, Funktionen (pp. 160–197). Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  9. Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Retrieved from
  10. Kruse, A., & Schmitt, E. (2000). Adult education and training. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences (pp. 139–142). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Mannheim, K. (1928). Das Problem der Generationen. Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie, 7(2), 157–185; (3), 309–330.Google Scholar
  12. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. Retrieved from:
  13. OECD. (2009). PIAAC problem solving in technology-rich environments: A conceptual framework (OECD Education Working Papers, 36). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
  14. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorm. Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Pietraß, M., Schmidt, B., & Tippelt, R. (2005). Informelles Lernen und Medienbildung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(05), 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pikalek, A. J. (2010). Navigating the social media learning curve. Continuing Higher Education Review, 74, 150–160.Google Scholar
  17. Potter, W. J. (2011). Media literacy (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Remtulla, K. A. (2010). ‘Media mediators’: Advocating an alternate paradigm for critical adult education ICT policy. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(3), 299–324.Google Scholar
  19. Saczynski, J. S., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (2002). Strategy use in reasoning training with older adults. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 9(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schäffer, B. (2003). Generationen – Medien – Bildung. Medienpraxiskulturen im Generationenvergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schaie, K. W. (2005). Developmental influences on adult intelligence. Oxford: The Seattle Longitudinal Study.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schleicher, A. (2008). PIAAC: A new strategy for assessing adult competencies. International Review of Education, 54, 627–650. Retrieved from
  23. Schmidt, B. (2007). Educational behaviour and interests of older adults. In E. Lucio-Villegas & M. del Carmen Martrinez (Eds.), Adult learning and the challenges of social and cultural diversity: Diverse lives, cultures, learnings and literacies 1. Proceedings of the 5th ESREA European research conference (pp. 157–166). Seville: University of Seville.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, B. (2010a). Educational goals and motivation of older workers. In S. Bohlinger (Ed.), Working and learning at old age. Theory and evidence in an emerging European field of research (pp. 127–136). Göttingen: Cuvillier.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, B. (2010b). Perception of age, expectations of retirement and continuing education of older workers. In Cedefop (Ed.), Working and ageing: Emerging theories and empirical perspectives (pp. 210–226). Luxembourg: Publications Office.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt-Hertha, B., & Thalhammer, V. (2012). Intergenerative Aneignung von Medienkompetenz in informellen Kontexten. In A. Hartung, B. Schorb, & C. Kuttner (Eds.), Generationen und Medienpädagogik. Annährungen aus Theorie, Empirie und Praxis (pp. 129–148). München: kopaed-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Strobel, C., Schmidt-Hertha, B., & Gnahs, D. (2011). Bildungsbiografische und soziale Bedingungen des Lernens in der Nacherwerbsphase. In Magazin, 13. Wien. Retrieved from
  28. Trinder, K., et al. (2008). Learning from digital natives: Bridging formal and informal learning. Retrieved from
  29. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha
    • 1
  • Claudia Strobel-Dümer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Socio-Educational Institute of SOS-Kinderdorf e.V.MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations