Computer Education and Third Age Universities: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Eligibility Criteria
2.2. Information Sources
2.3. Search Strategy
2.4. Selection Process
3. Results
3.1. Bibliometric Analysis
3.2. Content Analysis
3.2.1. Educators
3.2.2. Organizers/Directors
3.2.3. Students
3.2.4. Conceptual/Review
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OECD. Digital Economy Outlook 2020; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. In World Population Ageing 2019; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
- World Health Organization. Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Q.; Chan, A.H.S.; Teh, P.-L. Bridging the Digital Divide for Older Adults via Observational Training: Effects of Model Identity from a Generational Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campaña, J.C.; Ortega, R. Determinants of internet use by the elderly in Spain: Time dedicated to search and communications. Econ. Bus. Lett. 2021, 10, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, K. Technology and the Marginalization of Older Adults: How Politeness Theory and Stereotype Embodiment Interact in Older Adults ‘Technology Use. Honor Projects. 2018. Available online: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects/360 (accessed on 29 April 2018).
- European Commission. Digital Literacy Review; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sobral, S.R. Digital natives: A generation zapping the less fun technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Sevilla, Spain, 18–20 November 2015; pp. 4303–4309. [Google Scholar]
- Vroman, K.G.; Arthanat, S.; Lysack, C. “Who over 65 is online?” Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friemel, T. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media Soc. 2014, 18, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, S.; Marston, H.R.; Olynick, J.; Musselwhite, C.; Kulczycki, C.; Genoe, R.; Xiong, B. Intergenerational Effects on the Impacts of Technology Use in Later Life: Insights from an International, Multi-Site Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Boekel, L.; Peek, S.T.; Luijkx, K. Diversity in older adults’ use of the Internet: Identifying subgroups through latent class analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conroy, K.M.; Krishnan, S.; Mittelstaedt, S.; Patel, S.S. Technological advancements to address elderly loneliness: Practical considerations and community resilience implications for COVID-19 pandemic. Work. Older People 2020, 24, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- No Isolation, KOMP. 2020. Available online: https://www.noisolation.com/uk/komp/what-is-komp/ (accessed on 1 June 2021).
- Next Door, Next Door, Nextdoor. 2021. Available online: https://nextdoor.co.uk/ (accessed on 1 June 2021).
- International Society for Gerontechnology, International Society for Gerontechnology, International Society for Gerontechnology. 2021. Available online: https://www.gerontechnology.org/ (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Lesnoff-Caravaglia, G. Gerontechnology: Growing Old in a Technological Society; Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd.: Springfield, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Sobral, M.; Pestana, M.; Paul, C. Measures of cognitive reserve in Alzheimer’s disease. Trends Psychiatry Psychother 2014, 36, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, S.; Bolling, K.; Mao, W.; Reichstadt, J.; Jeste, D.; Kim, H.-C.; Nebeker, C. Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives. Health 2019, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goumopoulos, C.; Papa, I.; Stavrianos, A. Development and Evaluation of a Mobile Application Suite for Enhancing the Social Inclusion and Well-Being of Seniors. Informatics 2017, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tam, E.; Boas, P.; Ruaro, F.; Flesch, J.; Wu, J.; Thomas, A.; Li, J.; Lopes, F. Feasibility and Adoption of a Focused Digital Wellness Program in Older Adults. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobral, S.R.; Sobral, M. Computerized cognitive stimulation for people with dementia or with mild cognitive impairment: A bibliometric review. Dement. Neuropsychol. 2021, 15, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackermann, T.P.; Seifert, A. Older Adults’ Engagement in Senior University Lectures and the Effect of Individual Motivations. Front. Educ. 2021, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobral, M.; Paul, C. Education, leisure activities and cognitive and functional ability of Alzheimer’s disease patients: A follow-up study. Dementoa Neuropsychol. 2013, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sloane-Seale, A.; Kops, B. Older Adults in Lifelong Learning: Participation and Successful Aging. Can. J. Univ. Contin. Educ. 2008, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U3A, u3a—Principles and Vision, U3A. 2021. Available online: https://www.u3a.org.uk/about/vision (accessed on 2 May 2021).
- Third Age Foundation, Third Age, Third Age Foundation. 2021. Available online: https://www.thirdageireland.ie/ (accessed on 2 June 2021).
- U3A, U3A Online: A Virtual University of the Third Age, U3A. 2021. Available online: https://www.u3aonline.org.au/ (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Viktorova, L.V. Educational conditions for implementation of adults’ distance learning of foreign languages. Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools 2020, 75, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Liyanagunawardena, T.R.; Williams, S.A. Elderly Learners and Massive Open Online Courses: A Review. Interact. J. Med. Res. 2016, 5, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, J.; Zuo, M. Older adults’ learning motivations in massive open online courses. Educ. Gerontol. 2019, 45, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobral, S.R. Strategies on Teaching Introducing to Programming in Higher Education. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 133–150. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, C.-J.; Tasi, W.-C.; Yang, W.-L.; Guo, J.-L. How to help older adults learn new technology? Results from a multiple case research interviewing the internet technology instructors at the senior learning center. Comput. Educ. 2019, 129, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schardt, C.; Adams, M.B.; Owens, T.; Keitz, S.; Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2007, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fink, A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews; Sage: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cooke, A.; Smith, D.; Booth, A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, A. Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr. Hi Tech. 2006, 24, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wildridge, V.; Bell, L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2002, 19, 113–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, M.B.; Frandsen, T.F. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: A systematic review. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riva, J.J.; Malik, K.M.; Burnie, S.J.; Endicott, A.R.; Busse, J. What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. J. Can. Chiropr. Assoc. 2012, 56, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Saaiq, M.; Ashraf, B. Modifying “Pico” Question into “Picos” Model for More Robust and Reproducible Presentation of the Methodology Employed in A Scientific Study. World J. Plast. Surg. 2017, 6, 390–392. [Google Scholar]
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York). Systematic Reviews, CRD; University of York: Heslington, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- ADAPTE Collaboration. The ADAPTE Process: Resource Toolkit for Guideline (Version 2.0). Available online: http://www.g-i-n.net (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- Dawes, M.; Pluye, P.; Shea, L.; Grad, R.; Greenberg, A.; Nie, J.-Y. The identification of clinically important elements within medical journal abstracts: Patient-Population-Problem, Exposure-Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR). Inform. Prim. Care 2007, 15, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schlosser, R.W.; O’Neil-Pirozzi, T. Problem formulation in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews. Contemp. Issues Commun. Sci. Disord. 2006, 33, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jesson, J.; Matheson, L.; Acey, F.L. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques; Sage: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2002.02608. [Google Scholar]
- Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; López-Cózar, E.D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Inf. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobral, S.; Jesus-Silva, N.; Cardoso, A.; Moreira, F. EU27 Higher Education Institutions and COVID-19, Year 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scimago Lab. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Available online: http://www.scimagojr.com (accessed on 10 June 2021).
- Clarivate. Master Journal List; Clarivate: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Zygomatic, Word Clouds. 2021. Available online: https://www.wordclouds.com/ (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Camargo, M.C.; Lima-Silva, T.B.; Ordonez, T.N.; Batistoni, S.S.T.; Yassuda, M.S.; Melo, R.; Lopes, A.; Domingues, M.A.R.D.C.; Cachioni, M. Beliefs, perceptions, and concepts of old age among participants of a University of the Third Age. Psychol. Neurosci. 2018, 11, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, M.; Malighetti, P.; Spinelli, D. The impact of University of the Third Age courses on ICT adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Palo, V.; Limone, P.; Monacis, L.; Ceglie, F.; Sinatra, M. Enhancing E-Learning in Old Age. Aust. J. Adult Learn. 2018, 51, 88–109. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, H.; Galvão, L. nfoinclude citizens 50+: The formative contribution of USALBI—Senior University of Castelo Branco. In Proceedings of the 2016 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Gran Canaria, Spain, 15–18 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Grynova, M.; Khimchuk, L.; Szymczyk, K. Development of collaboration, research and mentoring skills of pre-service teachers facilitating ICT learning by older adults. Adv. Educ. 2020, 7, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, R.J.; Talmage, C.A.; Thaxton, S.P.; Knopf, R.C. Barriers to Age-Friendly Universities (AFU): Lessons from Osher Lifelong Learning Institute demographics and perceptions. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2019, 40, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, R.J.; Talmage, C.A.; Thaxton, S.P.; Knopf, R.C. Enhancing older adult access to lifelong learning institutes through technology-based instruction: A brief report. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2019, 41, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarolímek, J.; Vaněk, J.; Černá, E.; Šimek, P.; Vogeltanzová, T. Conditions and Limitations of Multimedia Senior Education in Regions. J. Effic. Responsib. Educ. Sci. 2020, 3, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.; Tapanainen, T.; Obi, T. A Review of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Training for Elderly People—Toward Recommendations for Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the PACIS 2014 Proceedings, Chengdu, China, 24–28 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Páscoa, G.; Gil, H. Facebook and the elderly: The importance of social software in lifelong learning. In Proceedings of the 7th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI 2012), Madrid, Spain, 20–23 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pascoa, G.; Gil, H. The urgency of lifelong learning: A study on the learning of information and communication technologies in populations 50+. In Proceedings of the 2017 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Lisbon, Portugal, 21–24 June 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Shedletsky, L. Undergraduates Mentoring Older Adults: Breaking Stereotypes. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 2012, 10, 400–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Mróz, A.; Potyrała, K.; Wnęk-Gozdek, J. Digital inclusion from the perspective of teachers of older adults—Expectations, experiences, challenges and supporting measures. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viktorov, L.V. Information and communication technologies in foreign language education for the third age learners. Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools 2018, 63, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; De Donder, L.; De Backer, F.; Shihua, L.; Honghui, P.; Thomas, V.; Vanslambrouck, S.; Lombaerts, K. Back to school in later life: Older Chinese adults’ perspectives on learning participation barriers. Educ. Gerontol. 2016, 42, 646–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, P.; Wright, P. Helping older adults conquer digital tablets. Gerontechnology 2016, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zemaitaityte, I.; Balčiūnaite, A. Application of information communication technologies in the study processes of the universities of the third age. Soc. Integration. Educ. Proc. Int. Sci. Conf. 2018, 5, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zumarova, M. The Role of ICT in the Lives of Senior Citizens. Advanced Educational Technologies. 2010, pp. 77–78. Available online: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/Tunisia/EDUTE/EDUTE-13.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2021).
Author, Year, Reference | Country | E | O | S | C | Aim |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Camargo et al., 2018 [58] | Brazil | X | To identify the correlations between beliefs, perceptions, and concepts about old age and the personal experience of aging among the elderly who attend a public university for seniors | |||
Cattaneo et al., 2016 [59] | Italy | X | To analyze the effects of education on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) adoption by focusing on the impact of older adults’ education | |||
de Palo et al., 2018 [60] | Italy | X | To assess the effectiveness of the e-learning content that has been adapted to the cognitive styles of a sample of older adults | |||
Gil et al., 2016 [61] | Portugal | X | To approach the global aging process, with particular emphasis on the EU-27 (27 European Union countries) and Portugal, as well as the issue of info-exclusion of citizens aged 50+ and its consequences for this group of citizens that prevent them from exercising adequate citizenship and consequent social inclusion | |||
Grynova et al., 2020 [62] | Ukraine, Poland | X | To substantiate the educational strategies of collaboration, research, and mentoring skills development in pre-service teachers facilitating older adults’ learning of ICT with the use of problem-based practice-oriented adult learning activities | |||
Hansen et al., 2019 [63] | USA | X | To describe the demographic characteristics of Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) students, changes from 2014 to 2016, to make comparisons with national trends, to investigate the barriers to participation identified by older students participating in OLLIs, to consider studies that have addressed such obstacles for underrepresented groups | |||
Hansen et al., 2020 [64] | USA | X | To assess whether technology-based instruction (TBI) can enhance or complement the in-person lifelong learning experience | |||
Jarolímek et al., 2010 [65] | Czech Republic | X | To propose and verify new modalities of distance education carried out through multimedia tools | |||
Nguyen et al., 2014 [66] | Finland, Japan | X | To review the difficulties that older people have in using computers and the lessons learned in ICT training | |||
Páscoa et al., 2012 [67] | Portugal | X | To understand the role of Facebook in promoting active aging | |||
Pascoa et al., 2017 [68] | Portugal | X | X | X | To identify the sociocultural factors that influence and condition the option of learning ICT and knowing the impacts of this learning on well-being (mental and social) throughout the aging process | |
Shedletsky, 2012 [69] | USA | X | To explore the perceptions of the undergraduates as they interact with older adults | |||
Tomczyk et al., 2020 [70] | Poland | X | To diagnose the needs of instructors working on the digital inclusion of persons who are excluded, or are at the risk of being excluded, marginalized, or discriminated against in terms of using new technologies | |||
Viktorova et al., 2018 [71] | Ukraine | X | To outline the pedagogical conditions for the successful use of modern ICT in foreign language education for “third age” learners | |||
Wang et al., 2016 [72] | China | X | To examine the barriers that affect the level of educational participation of older adults in China | |||
Wright., 2016 [73] | Walles | X | To learn what people need to learn, what interface changes can reduce cognitive demands, and what to improve in meetings | |||
Zemaitaityte et al., 2018 [74] | Lithuania | X | To review the experience of people arranging studies involving ICT in the University of the Third Age (U3A) organization | |||
Zumarova, 2010 [75] | Czech Republic | X | To contribute to further understanding of senior citizens’ needs in education and ICT utilization since the level of this knowledge represents a limiting factor towards improving the quality of their lives |
Reference | N and Methodology | Demographics | Other Results |
---|---|---|---|
[63,64] | 5561 Survey | Female (0.67) | Barriers |
White (0.95) | Time (0.16) | ||
Not LGBT (0.97) | Cost (0.07) | ||
≥ Bachelor’s degree (0.9) | Transport (0.04) | ||
Not working (0.83) | Physical mobility (0.03) | ||
<55 yrs. (0.075) | Hearing (0.02) | ||
55–59 yrs. (0.26) | Health (0.02) | ||
60–69 yrs. (0.27) | |||
70–74 yrs. (0.29) | |||
75–79 yrs. (0.17) | |||
80–84 yrs. (0.08) | |||
85+ yrs. (0.04) | |||
[58] | 256 Survey | Female (0.69) | Beliefs About Aging (0–5) |
Grade 12+ (0.36) | Cognition (2-79) | ||
Married (0.49) | Agency (0.83) | ||
60–64 yrs. (0.4) | Interpersonal relationships (2.78) | ||
65–69 yrs. (0.26) | Persona (2.85) | ||
70+ yrs. (0.3) | Beliefs (total score) (2.81) | ||
Does not feel old (0.7) | |||
Too old to learn (0.8) | |||
[60] | 94 Survey (Two groups based on the learning approach (face-to-face vs. online)) | Female (0.53) | |
Mean age (65.7) | |||
[71] | 310 Survey | Motivations for Learning | |
Communication (0.65) | |||
Personal development (0.25) | |||
Maintain their proactive attitude (0.1) | |||
Personal development (0.75) | |||
Small groups (0.45) | |||
Ability to use modern ICT in everyday life (0.85) | |||
[68] | 374 citizens (50+ years), 5 directors, 5 ICT teachers and 10 participants who have already attended an ICT training in senior universities. Survey | ||
[72] | 21 attendees of U3A courses; 22 no attendees Survey | Female (0.58) | |
[59] | 135 Survey | Female (0.37) | Use smartphones (0.90) |
≥ Bachelor’s degree (0.08) | Use computers (0.42) | ||
Not working (0.9) | Use tablets (0.13) | ||
Married/de facto (0.6) | |||
Mean age (74.5) | |||
65–69 yrs. (0.27) | |||
70–74 yrs. (0.21) | |||
75–79 yrs. (0-25) | |||
80+ yrs (0.27) | |||
[15] | 13 Non-participant observation | Female (0.54) | Familiar with computer while they were still working (0.8) |
Grade 9+ (0.62) | Discovered Skype or ICQ for communicating (0.24) | ||
Married (0.92) | |||
[18] | 736 Structured interviews | Mean age (75) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sobral, S.R.; Sobral, M. Computer Education and Third Age Universities: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147390
Sobral SR, Sobral M. Computer Education and Third Age Universities: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(14):7390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147390
Chicago/Turabian StyleSobral, Sónia Rolland, and Margarida Sobral. 2021. "Computer Education and Third Age Universities: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 14: 7390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147390
APA StyleSobral, S. R., & Sobral, M. (2021). Computer Education and Third Age Universities: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147390