Together Old and Young (TOY) : Arrow@Dit

Dublin Institute of Technology
ARROW@DIT
Reports Social Sciences
2013
Together Old and Young (TOY)

Anne Fitzpatrick
Dublin Institute of Technology, anne.fitzpatrick@dit.ie
Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.dit.ie/aaschsslrep

Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
Recommended Citation
Fitzpatrick, A., The TOY Project Consortium (2013) Intergenerational Learning Involving Young Children and Older People, Leiden:
The TOY Project.
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Social
Sciences at ARROW@DIT. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports
by an authorized administrator of ARROW@DIT. For more information,
please contact yvonne.desmond@dit.ie, arrow.admin@dit.ie,
brian.widdis@dit.ie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
Together Old & Young
A Review of the Literature on Intergenerational
Learning Involving Young Children and Older People
Acknowledgements
This review was researched and written by the TOY Project Consortium. Special
acknowledgement is due to the following: Giulia Cortellesi; Anne Fitzpatrick; Carmel
Gallagher; Montserrat Gea-Sanchez; Jerneja Jager; Margaret Kernan; Fidel Molina.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0

Unported License.
Suggested citation
The TOY Project Consortium (2013) Intergenerational Learning Involving Young Children and
Older People, Leiden: The TOY Project.
Design and layout

Patrick McDonald & Derek Doyle
The project TOY – Together Old and Young has been funded with support from the European
Commission, Lifelong Learning – Grundtvig Programme. This publication reflects the views only of
the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
Contents
Introduction 4
1 Context 9
2 Meanings & Definitions 13
3 Categorising Intergenerational Practice 17
4 Intergenerational Learning in Practice 20
5 Conclusions & Questions 29
References 31
Introduction
Intergenerational learning involves different age groups learning together or learning from
each other in a range of settings. It is viewed as being important in contemporary Europe as
it facilitates learning that might otherwise be diminished due to changing family structures,
migration, technological changes and growing age segregation.
Interest in intergenerational learning stems from new understandings of the process
and participation in education and learning. This includes the notions of lifelong and lifewide
learning as well as the need to respond positively to the growing separation of generations
and the subsequent distance between old and young. It also can be accounted for by
concerns regarding economic implications of an ageing Europe and the consequent need
for greater social and economic solidarity between generations.
However, whilst the topic is generating increasing interest at policy, academic and
community development levels, it is noteworthy that most attention in documented
intergenerational learning initiatives has focussed on bringing together older people with
older primary school aged children, second level school children and young people (i.e. 9 to
25 year-olds). Intergenerational learning initiatives involving young children would appear to
be a neglected area in research, practice, education, training and policy.
Attention in this review is on the specific learning dimension of intergenerational
practice that involves young children and older people in community settings. This is the
first time that such research has been undertaken and thus offers a new perspective on
intergenerational learning. We define young children as children who are 8 years and
younger and older people as 55 years and older. The review is part of a two-year European
project titled, “Together Old and Young (TOY): Young children and senior citizens learning
and developing in intergenerational community spaces”, which is being funded under
the EC Grundtvig Lifelong Learning Programme. Nine organisations in seven countries
are participating in TOY, bringing together the worlds of older care, active ageing, lifelong
learning, senior volunteering, early childhood education and care, research, training,
community development and local government.
A key rationale for the TOY project was the perceived lack of contact between young
children and older people in Europe to the detriment of both generations and a lack of
information about intergenerational learning involving young children and older people. In
order to further illuminate and address these issues a multi-phase research and capacity
building project was designed, which is informed by the Positive Deviance Approach (www.
positivedeviance.org).
The classic definition of the Positive Deviance Approach is as follows:
The Positive Deviance approach is a problem solving, asset-based approach grounded

in the fact that communities have assets or resources they haven’t tapped. It enables a
community or organization to amplify uncommon behaviours or strategies discovered
by community members among the least likely to succeed (positive deviants), develop
some activities or initiatives based on these findings and measure outcomes. The
Positive Deviance approach brings about sustainable behavioural and social change
by identifying solutions already existing in the system. (The Positive Deviance Initiative,
2010, p.2)
4
The Positive Deviance methodology consists of five steps. These steps and how they are
being interpreted in the various phases of the TOY Project are presented below.
1 Define the problem, current perceived causes, challenges, common practices and goals.
This literature review, the result of the first phase of the TOY Project, provides an analysis of
intergenerational learning involving older people and young children in Europe including
constraints, opportunities and issues needing further analysis.
2 Determine the presence of PD individuals or groups.

The background research conducted for the literature review involved the identification of
individuals, groups and initiatives in seven European countries, which have succeeded in
bringing together the two generations in learning contexts.
3 Discover uncommon but successful behaviours and strategies through inquiry and
observation. The Positive Deviance Action Research (Phase 2 of the TOY Project) will involve a
more in-depth investigation of the individuals, groups and initiatives identified in the Literature
Review phase.
4 Design activities to allow community members to practise the discovered behaviours. The
design and content of capacity building modules and pilot actions (Phases 3 and 4 of TOY
Project) will be based on the outcomes of the TOY Positive Deviance Action Research. It is also
envisaged that many of the participants of phase 2 will also participate in the capacity building
modules and pilot actions.
5 Monitor and evaluate the resulting project or initiative which further fuels change by
documenting and sharing improvements as they occur, and help the community discern
the effectiveness of the initiative. The results of all phases of the TOY Project will be monitored,
evaluated and documented. Stakeholder seminars involving interested parties will be held in
all participating countries to disseminate results. This provides an opportunity to discuss the
results with local communities and reflect on what works best.
As stated above this literature review is the result of the first phase of a multi phase project,
which involves action research, capacity building and training and development of innovative
pilot actions (see www.toyproject.net for more details).
In summary, by way of a review of the literature we wanted to check firstly, the validity of
our perception of a growing separation between young children and older adults; secondly,
to review the benefits of intergenerational practice involving these two groups; and thirdly, to
find out if there are general and regional trends in Europe with respect to intergenerational
learning involving old and young.
5
Why is intergenerational learning important?
Perceived broad goals and benefits of intergenerational learning have been documented in
a number of reports and handbooks (Beth Johnson Foundation, 2011; Bostrom, 2003; ENIL,
2012; Harper & Hamblin, 2010). The following list of benefits from a 2012 report captures the
most frequently cited:
Sharing people’s skills, experiences, achievements and talents to achieve mutual benefits;
enhancing self-esteem and reducing exclusion for individuals and communities;
changing negative perceptions of older and younger people; increasing the participation
of people in Life Long Learning; engaging more people in employment, education and
training; enhancing active citizenship across generations; helping people feel safer by
promoting greater understanding between generations; increasing physical and mental
health and wellbeing; creating neighbourhoods that help people to age well; helps in
understanding the reasons for people’s behaviour, helps in making new contacts with
people of different generations. (Welsh Local Government Association and Beth
Johnson Foundation, 2012)
Intergenerational learning is slowly establishing itself as a new interdisciplinary

area of study (Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008; Granville & Ellis, 1999) and policy area as
demonstrated by the decision of the European Commission to dedicate 2012 as European
Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations. This is paralleled by a growing
interest in intergenerational practice from grass roots levels (Beth Johnson Foundation,
2011). Evidence of these developments can be seen in the publication of a dedicated
journal on the topic “Journal of Intergenerational Relationships”; the work of European
networks and projects such as ENIL (European Network of Intergenerational Learning) and
EMIL (European MAP of Intergenerational Learning), a growing database of handbooks and
compilations of intergenerational practice. The emergence of the concept of age-friendly
communities has also generated interest in intergenerational learning at local government
level. Pain (2005) referring to the UK, suggests that intergenerational practice has a valuable
contribution to make to the achievement of sustainable communities and inclusive public
spaces and closely matches key government priorities, including social inclusion, citizenship
and community development.
However, as stated above, there is a definite lack of awareness and expertise regarding
intergenerational learning involving young children and older people. This was the key
rationale for the TOY project.
Aim of review
1 Set the context for the whole TOY Project by exploring why intergenerational learning
involving young children and older people is important in contemporary Europe;
2 Explain key definitions, concepts and terminology which will inform the TOY Project;
3 Synthesise key European research which identifies the goals and benefits of intergenerational
learning for older people and young children;
4 Explore if regional trends exist in relation to intergenerational learning;
5 Identify emerging issues and concerns, which will be further explored in the Positive
Deviance action research, capacity building and pilot action phases of the TOY Project.
6
Methodology
The following were important considerations in the methodological design:
A multidisciplinary approach
Given that intergenerational learning involving young children and older people is a multi-
sectoral and multi-disciplinary enterprise, it was important to include research material
from many disciplines and areas of practice including: education, gerontology, sociology,
psychology, health, social policy and community development. Relevant peer reviewed
academic research was sourced via the following research bases: COBIB, ERIC, EBSCO,
google scholar, sage, scopus, and sociological abstracts, springerlink (in English) and Dialnet
and Latin Index in Spanish and Portuguese. Search words included: Intergenerational learning;
family learning; non-formal, formal and informal learning; older people; older adults; active
ageing; (pre-school) children; lifelong and lifewide learning; community learning; social capital;
volunteering; cooperation; grandparenting; quality of life; benefit;, wellbeing.
Age range
We included research, projects, and initiatives which involve young children (under 9 years)
and older people (55 – 74 years, 75 years +). In exceptional cases we included intergenerational
initiatives involving primary school children where there was a possibility of transfer to a
younger age group if it was deemed useful and relevant to the TOY Project.
Geographical scope
The priority in the literature review was given to research conducted in project countries
(Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain). If research from countries
other than TOY countries was found, and was deemed to be particularly relevant and useful
for TOY’s focus, this was also included in the review.
Temporal scope
The temporal scope for the literature was 2006 to the present. However, in a few exceptional
cases we included earlier key references.
Inclusion of both ‘grey’ and academic literature

We also gave priority to including data from the so-called ‘grey literature’ as well as peer
reviewed research. Thus, unpublished research, information booklets or leaflets, handbooks,
conference proceedings, newspaper reports, news or blog items online, project reports,
digital materials, national government or local government reports were also included. This
broad scope was important because we felt that much information on intergenerational
learning involving young children (if it existed) was hidden and not readily available in research
publications. We were also keen to reflect the experience and expertise of civil society. By
tapping into this source we would be better prepared for the subsequent phases of the
TOY Project i.e. Positive Deviance Action Research; Capacity Building Modules and the Pilot
Actions. These considerations are also reflected in the membership of the TOY consortium, a
mix of universities, NGOs and local authorities.
Grey literature primarily encompassed information on projects and initiatives from
the seven participating countries in TOY. Participating organisations were able to draw on
7
their own networks in sourcing this information. Additional information was sourced from
England, Wales, Scotland and Scandinavia. Of particular interest in reviewing both academic
and grey literature was to investigate the form and process of intergenerational learning
and benefits, if any, for young children and older people.
Overview of report
The literature review report contains five sections. The first section provides an overview of the
social, educational and economic context in Europe impacting on intergenerational practice
and learning. This is followed by an explanation of the terminology used when talking about
intergenerational learning. In the third section we provide a brief overview of frameworks
and models which have been developed to ‘make sense of’ or to categorise intergenerational
practice, programmes and projects. The largest section of the review is Section 4 where we
present the TOY Framework of Intergenerational Learning Involving Old and Young and review
selected intergenerational projects and initiatives in Europe which involve young children
and older people. In the final section we identify key questions and challenges which will be
further investigated in the subsequent phases of the TOY Project.
8
1 Context
It is important to consider developments in intergenerational learning in Europe within the

context of social, educational, cultural and economic changes. A number of overlapping areas
which are considered to impact on the possibilities of young children engaging with older
people are now briefly discussed. These include changing demographics, social and family
structures, the institutionalisation of education and caring and the role of grandparents.
Particular attention is paid to trends in TOY’s seven participating countries.
Changing demographics and social and family structures

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution average life expectancy has grown from 40
to 80 years and there is no sign that this trend is going to change (Vaupel, 2010). In the
European Union average life expectancy at birth is 79.7. This is due to improved standards
of living, education and advances in healthcare (Eurostat, 2012). An ageing population is
a major policy issue across European countries – 71% of the population is conscious that
populations are ageing and 42% on average are concerned about that (Eurobarometer, 2012).
On the face of it, living longer, healthier and more active lives is something to be celebrated.
However, there are also concerns regarding potential conflict among generations, given that
relatively speaking there are and will continue to be fewer people of working age in Europe,
which has serious implications for public finances, for pensions, health and long-term care. It
is noteworthy that the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon links EU proper functioning to intergenerational
solidarity (Council of the European Union, 2010).
Although older people are living longer, many are increasingly isolated from family
members and young generations due to urbanisation, migration, family breakdown and
increasing spread of extended networks of families across communities and continents.
Social and demographic changes in Europe are also affecting the lives, relationships and
learning opportunities of young children. A general lowering of fertility means that children
in Europe are growing up in smaller families with fewer siblings and have fewer opportunities
for connections with diverse age groups. The average number of births per woman across
Europe is 1.59. Amongst the countries participating in TOY fertility rates range from 2.0 live
births per woman in Ireland to 1.3 live births per woman in Poland (Eurostat, 2012).
While the overall size of families is declining throughout Europe, family structure and
form is also changing. The standard nuclear family model while still the dominant model, is
being replaced, albeit at different rates, by a range of family forms and lifestyles. The wide
range of different, nationally or regionally specific patterns of family forms and structures is
connected to different cultural background or family policy models (Beier et al, 2010).
The European trend towards lower birth rates will result in future generations having
few, if any, siblings. As life expectancy increases, the likelihood of many generations within
a family co-existing increases, giving rise to a new form of family tree characterised as the
‘beanpole family’ (Brannen, 2003). The ‘long thin’ family is characterised by an increase in the
number of living generations within a lineage and a decrease in the number of people within
each generation. As a result, more persons in their 50’s and 60’s will have surviving parents
and more children will know their grandparents. So while vertical links between generations
of the family are strengthening through increasing life expectancy, the horizontal links within
generations may be weakening as divorce rates rise and family size decreases.
9
Institutionalisation of education and caring
The growing separation of generations into same age institutions and spaces, such as pre-
schools and retirement homes, increases the possibility that young children and older adults
may miss out on opportunities for interaction, understanding and learning from each other.
More children are attending Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings from an
early age. Here, children are frequently organised in same-age groupings and are cared for
by predominately young to middle-aged women. The European Commission is stimulating
higher participation in ECEC as a means to improve educational success and reduce social
inequality. In this regard it has set a target for 2020 of 90% participation in ECEC amongst
young children before attending primary school. Current attendance rate is variable,
especially for children under 3 years, where just five countries have achieved 33% and the
majority are at a 10% rate. Almost 70 percent of 3 to 6 year-olds attend ECEC. However, in
some EU countries for example Netherlands, Spain and Italy almost 100% of 4-year-olds are
in an ECEC or Primary school setting (European Commission, 2011).
An increasing number of children attend after-school services to support parents in
their work and caring responsibilities, although as with ECEC, attendance rates are variable.
However, it is also difficult to make accurate cross-national comparisons due to different
understandings of ‘after-school care’, ‘after-school services’, ‘after-school activities’, and the
variations in number of hours and days per week spent there. According to Quality and
Evaluation National Institute (2001), nine out of ten children in Spain attend after-school
activities. In the Netherlands, just 20% of 4 to 11 year-olds attend after-school care, and
another 4% attend childminding/family day care services.
It is difficult to find accurate comparative data from different EU countries with regard
to living arrangements of older people – however the literature does point to some regional
diversity. This diversity may be due to cultural tendencies towards more individualised versus
familial living as well as national policy trends. The Dutch model of elderly care encourages
older people to live independently at home for as long as possible. Here public support
can take the form of home help, as well as care in group care homes when necessary, with
ongoing family involvement (Melchior, 2013). A European Quality of Life Survey found that
25% of Italians aged 65+ lived in a household with a child, while more than 20% did so in
Spain and Slovenia (Saraceno, 2005). Approximately 6% of the population of people aged
65 years and older in Ireland are receiving residential care (McGill, 2010). Independent living
trends across Europe are also evident in Eurostat figures. Amongst the TOY participating
countries, the highest rate of independent living amongst people aged 65+ as a single adult
or as a couple are the Netherlands (95%). Lowest rates of independent living have been
recorded for Spain (63%) and Portugal (66%). In Poland, every fifth older person lives in a
three generation family, and one in four older persons prefers this family model to any other
(Centrum Badania Opini Publicznej, 2012).
Intergenerational contact between young and old in public spaces has changed due
to new family-work patterns, growth of computers and digital based home entertainment,
more children in organised ECEC settings, urbanisation and heightened awareness of risk.
These factors have resulted in young children being less likely to play on the street, in parks,
piazzas or in other public spaces outdoors where traditionally different generations meet.
Research conducted by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People found that
only 5% of those aged over 65 year had any form of structured contact with local children.
10
This coupled with the institutionalisation of older people means that young children and
older people have little contact with each other.
The role of grandparents in Europe

Despite the separation between the generations, grandparents continue to play an important
role in young children’s and families’ lives across Europe.
Increased life expectancy means that grandparents can have more opportunities to share
time with children and grandchildren and over longer periods of time. A study conducted
by Guerts (2012) in the Netherlands concluded that connectedness between grandparents
and grandchildren is stronger now than a few decades ago. Grandparents had gained a
more prominent role in the socialisation and nurturance of their grandchildren largely due
to higher employment rates of mothers, increase in single motherhood, rising childcare
costs and greater opportunities for grandparents to provide child care. National differences
in relation to the role of grandparents in the care of grandchildren are also evident with
grandparents in Spain and Italy providing the lowest share of care and those in the Nordic
countries providing the highest. However, this does not reflect differences in the amount of
regular childcare which may be provided for a shorter duration (Hank and Buber, 2009).
Apart from the tangible roles that many grandparents play in providing care and support,
research has highlighted to the symbolic significance of grandparents in the lives of their
grandchildren and the important role they play in transmitting values and family history. A
Polish survey on the role that grandparents played in people’s lives found that 72 per cent
felt that they owed something to their grandparents – they appreciated that grandparents
helped to raise them (65%); loved them (64%); passed on moral values (57%) and passed
on religious values (54%). Forty per cent said their grandparents had great influence on
their worldview and life choices, while 48% said they owed their sense of duty, diligence,
self-control and strong will to their grandparents (Centrum Badania Opini Publicznej, 2012).
The important role of grandparents as sources of fun and companionship was identified
in an Irish study in which almost two-thirds of children had quite a lot of contact with their
grandparents (Growing Up in Ireland, 2011). Not having ultimate parental responsibility for
grandchildren means that relationships may revolve less around rules and discipline and
more around enjoyment and communication (Timonen, et al, 2009).
Research since the 1990s has highlighted the important role grandparents can play in
households where parents are absent or at times of crisis. It is also important to acknowledge
the costs to the physical and mental health, finances, relationships and social life of the
older persons due to caring responsibilities for grandchildren, which has been highlighted in
research conducted in Ireland. Extensive caregiving by grandparents can impact negatively
on physical and mental health. Furthermore, grandparent-led families often face greater
economic disadvantage than other families and tend to be more reliant on government
benefits and pensions (cited in Timonen, Doyle & O’ Dwyer, 2009). Across Europe, transfers
of financial and practical help occur more frequently from older to younger generations
than the reverse (Barrett, A. et al, 2011)
Research has also reiterated the central role of the middle or parental generation
in mediating grandparent–grandchild relations, in particular mothers who have been
described in the literature as the ‘kin keepers’ (Hagestad, 1985, cited in Timonen, Doyle &
O’Dwyer, 2009, p.18). Guerts (2012) notes that adult children often serve as a ‘lineage bridge’
11
by either facilitating or hindering contact (Oppelar & Dykstra, 2004 cited in Guerts, 2012)
or indeed they can shape the opportunity structure for intergenerational contact through
their choices about where they live. The role of the middle generation may be of particular
significance in intergenerational projects with young children and this will be investigated in
the course of the TOY project.
We can conclude that in general demographic, social and economic trends in Europe
suggest that compared to previous generations, it is less likely that young children and older
adults are growing up amongst a diverse set of family and other relationships spanning
age groups and generations. Opportunities to interact have been limited for many young
children and older persons both within the family and outside the family setting. This may
have a negative impact on both generations for learning. It is also important to acknowledge
the regional variation in patterns and expectations of intergenerational living. The tendency
in Northern Europe is for older people to live alone, independently of children and
grandchildren and at the same time remain active in the community. Whereas in countries
in Southern Europe, older people are more likely to live with extended family. What is most
significant, however, is the important role grandparents play in their grandchildren’s lives in
all regions in Europe.
12
2 Meanings & Definitions
This section explores in greater depth the background and meaning of the terminology
associated with intergenerational learning including concepts such as lifelong and lifewide
learning, informal, nonformal and formal learning and active ageing. While these concepts
may be familiar to those working in the area of adult education and lifelong learning, we
present them here for early childhood education and care practitioners, researchers and
policymakers who may be less familiar with the concepts. Furthermore, it provides a common
conceptual framework for the TOY project.
Education and lifelong learning

Up to the late 20th century, formal learning in educational institutions was considered the
most highly regarded and frequently the only valid form of learning. However, education
is increasingly being seen as an enterprise for life (Hutchins, 1968). By the 1990’s the term
lifelong learning had begun to be used in policies developed by the OECD, UNESCO and the
EU to describe learning and training across the lifespan and to reflect the view that everyone
should have the opportunity to engage in learning at any time during their lives (EC, 2007;
UNESCO, 2001).
A 2001 UNESCO report, Revisiting lifelong learning for the 21st century, noted that
Not only must it (lifelong learning) adapt to changes in the nature of work, but it must
also constitute a continuous process of forming whole beings - their knowledge and
aptitudes, as well as the critical faculty and the ability to act. It should enable people to
develop awareness of themselves and their environment and encourage them to play
their social role and work in the community. (Delors report, p 221 cited in Medel-
Anonuevo et al, 2001, p 4)

In 2012 the European Commission took a dual approach to lifelong learning policy, on the
one hand focusing on the ‘humanistic’ approach while on the other hand stressing “the need
to anticipate skill needs and raise overall skill levels, giving priority to the education and
training of those with low skills and at the risk of economic and social exclusion” (Council
Resolution of 15 November 2007 on the new skills for new jobs (007/C290/01).
Lifewide learning
The concept of lifewide learning is a development of the ‘lifelong’ concept that highlights
the fact that learning can take place across the full range of life experiences at any stage
in life. The lifewide definition of learning, of its nature, includes formal, non-formal and
informal learning. Thus lifewide learning could take place in the family, in the workplace, in
leisure time and in community life (Skolvert, 2000) often entailing linkages between formal
and nonformal systems of education (Dave, 1976 and Rao, 1979 cited in Bostrom, 2003, p
12). The “contribution to learning of people who are not trained, paid or acknowledged as
teachers” (ibid.,p 5) is also important.
The rationale for lifelong learning proposed by the OECD (2010) suggests that it is a means
for effective social and community engagement as well as for living fulfilling and meaningful
lives. Lifelong and lifewide learning are also viewed as being central to the creation of
solidarity among the generations at global, national, community, neighbourhood and family
13
levels. In a world where ICT confers power in relation to knowledge and resources, older
people without technological skills may be marginalised. Children teaching older people ICT
skills not only makes learning more widely available within society, but promotes the notion
of lifewide learning where the contribution to learning is frequently offered by persons
who are not trained, paid or acknowledged as teachers - in this case by children (Linking
Generations Northern Ireland, 2011, p 32; Bringing Generations Together in Wales, 2012, p 23).
Formal, Informal, Nonformal Learning

With the recognition of lifelong and lifewide learning has come new perspectives on how
learning is understood and appreciated resulting in a more flexible, inclusive paradigm of
learning that includes formal, nonformal and informal learning and settings. Coombs and
Ahmed (1974) proposed the following three modes of education for lifelong learning:
Formal education “the highly institutionalised, chronologically graded and hierarchically

structured “education system”, spanning lower primary school and the upper reaches of
the university. Examples include pre-schools, primary schools, second level schools and
third level educational institutions.
Nonformal education “any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside
the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the
population, adults as well as children.” Examples include parent and toddler groups,
volunteer organisations, older people’s clubs and youth clubs.
Informal education “the lifelong process by which every person acquires and accumulates
knowledge, skills, attitudes and insights from daily experiences and exposure to the
environment – at home, at work, at play; from the example and the attitudes of the family
and friends; from travel, reading newspapers and books or by listening to the radio or
viewing films or television.” (Coombs and Ahmed cited in Bostrom, 2003, p.11). Examples
include playgrounds, museums, art galleries, clubs and libraries and in children’s and
adults spontaneous encounters in social and physical environments.
Coombs and Ahmed argue that it is necessary for elements from formal, nonformal and
informal education to be synthesised and strong links to be developed between them, in
order for systems of lifelong education to evolve (ibid., cited in Bostrom: 2003, p.12). A similar
point has been made by Kernan and van Oudenhoven (2010) in relation to the importances
of linkages between informal, non-formal and formal ECEC, so that they can support and
reinforce each other and create new possibilities for learning.
Young children learn primarily in informal settings, with parents and the extended
family being the primary educators and transmitters of culture. Sociocultural theories of
learning derived from Vygotsky’s ideas and developed by Rogoff (1990) are particularly
relevant in exploring young children’s learning within the family and may also be important
in understanding extrafamilial intergenerational learning. In a study of intergenerational
learning between young children and grandparents in East London, Kenner et al found key
concepts of sociocultural theory included “scaffolding provided by caregivers, the syncretising
of knowledge and experiences from different sources, synergy leading to mutual benefits
for the young child and others involved, funds of knowledge within communities and the
transmission of knowledge or ’prolepsis’ between generations applied to this new area of
14
intergenerational learning” (Kenner et al 2007, p 220). Adults, after they have completed
their formal education, continue to learn in non-formal and informal environments.
Intergenerational Learning
Intergenerational learning is actually the oldest method of learning and is the process whereby
knowledge, skills, values and norms are transmitted between generations, typically through
the family (Hoff, 2007). Familial intergenerational learning is informal and multigenerational
and typically involves learning that takes place naturally as part of day-to-day social activity
(Jessel, 2009). Thus, the cultural context of kinship and family structures must be considered
in any investigation of intergenerational learning.
Within the field of intergenerational learning, the term family learning can be used to
describe learning oriented activities that family members do together outside the family
home for the benefit of the whole family and often the community as a whole. Examples
include family groupings of different generations including children visiting a museum
together (Vels Heijn, 2011), or international volunteering workcamps, where children, parents
and grandparents from various countries work together on an environmental or restoration
project (di Pietro, 2012). Another interpretation of family learning refers to literacy, language
and numeracy programmes, which are aimed at supporting parents in their educating role.
Here, grandparents or other older volunteers can also be involved and the setting could be
the home, or ECEC or library. Interventions at family level to improve family functioning in
families experiencing difficulties could also be viewed as a form of family or intergenerational
learning. This last more specialised form of intergenerational learning is not being included
in this review as it is considered not within the remit of the TOY Project.
A new model of intergenerational learning – the extrafamilial intergenerational learning
model facilitates wider social groups outside the family to contribute to the socialisation of
the young.
The extrafamilial intergenerational learning model has been identified as having great
potential to create benefits for individuals and society. As noted in the introduction a key
concept in relation to intergenerational learning is that it puts equal emphasis on learning
together, learning from each other and learning about each other (Preisser, 2011). There
is some evidence that intergenerational programmes and practice incorporating formal,
nonformal and informal learning and settings create resources that add value to the lives
of individuals and create better communities (Beth Johnson Foundation, 2011; Butts, 2007;
Pinazo et al, 2007 and Martin et al, 2010).
Intergenerational Learning and Active Ageing

Intergenerational learning has been strongly associated with the concept of active ageing
which the World Health Organisation (WHO) defined as the process for optimising
opportunities for physical, social and mental well-being throughout the life course (WHO
Active Ageing, 2002). The recently published ENIL report (2012), Intergenerational learning
and active ageing suggests that intergenerational learning is linked to active ageing through
activities that structure interactions and exchanges between generations and which function
towards social and cultural mediation.
The Third Age has been conceptualised as marking the period when an individual
has retired from formal work but is physically and mentally active and able to engage
15
in active leisure The Third Age fuses the latter part of non-old adulthood and the active
younger part of old age (Laslett, 1996). The Fourth Age was seen by Laslett as a period
following the Third Age when physical and cognitive decline could be expected. The focus
of much intergenerational practice is on the Third Age where more active older people (in
the 55 plus age group) engage in educational or purposive leisure activities in some type
of community-based educational or social enterprise. It is important, however, to guard
against a stereotyping of the Fourth Age when people experience physical and possibly
mental decline and to assume that older people in that stage are not also entitled to life
affirming experiences such as purposive leisure and developmental activities and do not
also contribute to the lives of others.
Older people in the Third Age represent a significant resource for volunteering, which
is often a key component of extra-familial intergenerational learning. Volunteering takes
on different forms and meanings in different settings as it is strongly influenced by the
history, politics, religion and culture of a region. However, commonly agreed characteristics
of volunteering include the absence of financial reward, the lack of coercion, personal
commitment and the benefits that both the volunteer and the recipient or organisation
derive from the volunteering activity (Davis Smith, 1999).
The concept of ‘age-friendly communities’ which is emerging in the literature reflects
the breadth of intergenerational interactions and learning in local communities. The
WHO defines an ‘age-friendly community’ as one that optimises opportunities for health,
participation and security as people age. In an age-friendly community, policies, services,
and infrastructure are designed to respond flexibly to ageing-related needs and preferences.
Some of the factors an age-friendly community considers are outdoor spaces and buildings,
social participation, respect, social inclusion and contribution in all areas of community life
(WHO, 2007).
The convergence of the concepts intergenerational learning, active ageing and age-
friendly communities helps to mainstream and embed intergenerational policy and practice.
In the TOY project particular attention is being paid to learning experiences in non-formal
settings in the community as well as linkages to formal and informal settings.
16
3 Categorising intergenerational practice
Considerable attention in the literature has been paid to categorising intergenerational

practice according to their forms, functions and learning areas. Brown and Ohsako (2003)
discuss a typology of interactions between the elderly and the young, comprising;
• Older adults serving children and youth (as tutors, mentors, resource persons, coaches and
friends, a grandparent raising a grandchild)
• Children and youth serving older people (as friendly visitors, companions and tutors)
• Older people and youth collaborating in service to community (e.g. environmental and
community development projects)
• Older people, youth and children together engaging themselves in informal learning activities,
recreation, leisure and sports events or art festivals and exhibitions.
The ENIL report also categorised the different types of activities involved in intergenerational
learning according to distinct principles which may overlap:
• Friendly and informal social encounters,

• Transfer of experiences, knowledge, know-how and memories,
• Mutual creations (artistic, cultural or other),
• Active solidarity towards those in difficulty, living together
(Intergenerational learning and active ageing, 2012, p 15)
Springate et al (2008) provide a comprehensive model of intergenerational practice (see

Figure 1 below) which reflects the diversity of participants, settings, activities and aims of
intergenerational practice (Springate et al, 2008, p 5).
Figure 1 – Intergenerational practice ©NFER
17
While this model captures the breadth of intergenerational activities, it does not illustrate
the depth of engagement involved. Intergenerational activities may be described in terms of
a scale ranging from a low level of contact to higher levels that ‘promote intensive contact
and ongoing opportunities for intimacy’ (Kaplan, 2002, p.314) and can be graded according
to Kaplan’s model as follows:
Level 1 Learning about the other age group, but with no direct contact
Level 2 Seeing the other age group but at a distance
Level 3 Meeting each other
Level 4 Annual or periodic activities
Level 5 Demonstration projects (implemented on an experimental or trial basis)
Level 6 On-going intergenerational programmes
Level 7 On-going, natural intergenerational sharing, support and communication
The Beth Johnson Foundation suggests that intergenerational practice occurs when level
5 projects lead to level 6 programmes. At the top level (level 7), intergenerational practice is
seen to become embedded in the community and therefore becomes a way of working and
living (Beth Johnson Foundation, 2011). This is clearly a process that can only evolve over
time and links in with ideas of communities for all ages.
The challenge for the TOY Project is to provide a framework for intergenerational practice
which captures the process of intergenerational learning in non-formal community spaces
and which brings together children 8 years and younger and older people 55 years +. The
first step in this endeavour was to explore existing research and practice in this subset of
intergenerational practice. The second step will involve undertaking further in-depth action
research, which will be informed by a Positive Deviance approach (see Introduction). This
second phase of TOY (April to August 2013), will aim to uncover successful approaches
including skills and resources needed to organise mutually beneficial activities for older
people and young children.
18
4 Intergenerational Training in Practice
The Toy Framework for Intergenerational Learning involving Old and Young
The analysis of both the academic and the grey literature has led to the identification of the
following five goals of intergenerational practice and learning involving young children and
older people:
1 Building and sustaining relationships

2 Enhancing social cohesion in the community
3 Facilitating older people as guardians of knowledge
4 Recognising the roles of grandparents in young children’s lives
5 Enriching learning processes of children and older adults
These goals are being used in the TOY project as an organising framework for the capacity
building of practitioners and for planning pilot actions. We have also used the five goals
of intergenerational learning to outline and discuss projects identified through the grey
literature research. These five goals are not mutually exclusive – there are many linkages and
overlaps between them.
From the outset in the TOY project, we decided to focus on two broad thematic areas:
Nature and Outdoor Learning and Arts, Culture and the Creativity. Whilst our primary focus is
on learning in nonformal and informal settings, such as community centres, libraries, gardens,
playgrounds, ECEC settings, care homes, family homes, we also included examples from
childcare settings, kindergartens and primary schools. We have therefore mainly selected
examples of intergenerational practice involving children in the following areas: gardening,
planting, growing, preparation and eating food, nature play areas, art and craft projects,
storytelling, local history and heritage, play and traditional games, making books, and early
literacy support.
The TOY working framework, which builds on the model presented in Springate et al is
presented in Figure 2 below. It is likely that the Framework will be further refined based on
learning during subsequent phases of the project.
19
Mediators
parents, ECEC practitioners,
social care practitioners,
intergenerational coaches
and mentors
Older People Intergenerational Learning in Young Children
55+
formal and non-formal settings
0-8
Goals
4 Recognising the roles of grandparents
Thematic Areas Settings

Nature and Outdoor Libraries
Learning Gardens
Arts, Culture and Playgrounds
Creativity ECEC settings
Care homes
Family homes
Community centres
Figure 2 – TOY framework
20
Examples of intergenerational practice in Europe
In reviewing the literature, we were particularly interested in finding out about the form and
process of intergenerational learning involving young and old, which kinds of organisations
are involved, who benefits and how, innovative elements in intergenerational practice and
any limitations or challenges. Another focus in the review was to assess the initiatives and
activities based on Kaplan’s model (Kaplan, 2002). More information on the initiatives referred
to below can be found by following the website/blog address in the References section.

Perhaps the dominant goal of both intra and extra-familial intergenerational practice has
been to build and develop relationships and reduce the separation between generations.
This can aim both to enrich relationships generally and to counteract negative stereotypes
and isolation of older people where these exist (Hollywood, 2004; Pinazo-Hernandis, 2011).
Research conducted by the University of Barcelona, Spain, which used children’s drawings
as a methodology, indicated that the image that 9-12 old children held about older people
was less negative than concluded in similar studies. Although some drawings had negative
content, most pictured a positive - and even friendly – image of old people (Villar & Faba,
2012).
Selected project examples

One of the most effective ways of building relationships involving younger children is through
shared activities (Bruner,1976). Spending time in each other’s company doing simple
activities and having fun is the focus of many successful intergenerational projects involving
younger children. This is reflected in the idea of ‘Grandparent Days’, which are popular in
ECEC services and the early classes in Primary school in several countries including the
Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the UK. Typically, these take place once or twice
a year and often as part of thematic work on families or grandparents and are reported on
or documented in short news items on services’ websites and blogs or in photos displayed
in the services. The precise form of the involvement varies and could include baking with
children, reading stories aloud, performance, dancing and singing together or going on a
walk/hike together (See Blogspots consulted for Spain and the Netherlands in References
section for further information).
The idea of people looking forward to the meetings, enjoying the company of each other
and having fun together has been highlighted in many of the projects reviewed. This is seen
as particularly important for older people whose opportunities for social interaction may
be restricted. Clearly, fun and enjoyment is a key motivator for young children’s learning
whether in the company of their peers, or older people in their family or community.
A project that focused on exploring in a light-hearted way the personal identities of old
and young was undertaken in a London primary school. A small group of children and local
residents used poetry, masks and digital media to explore who they were and who they
might like to be (London Borough of Camden, 2009).
Intergenerational projects that focused on improving deficits in relationships among
the generations included an initiative in Northern Ireland where local older people worked
with migrant children (4-11 years) and their families to promote greater integration in the
community. The project also had the benefit of supporting young migrant children who had
21
little contact with their grandparents. This project facilitated greater community engagement
and enriched the lives of all participants by altering negative views and enhancing community
engagement and participatory democracy (Linking Generations Northern Ireland, 2010).
Another example is a Polish project involving senior volunteers and an NGO, which
involved regular meetings between older people and pre-school and school-aged children.
Older people reported feeling needed, being able to forget about their problems and
becoming more open. The important outcome of this initiative was that many older people
changed their approach to their own families and tried to re-establish broken bonds with
their own children and grandchildren (Akademia Rozwoju Filantropii w Polsce, 2007).
It is important to highlight that many of these types of intergenerational projects do not
involve in depth cooperation over extended periods. This suggests that they remain at levels
1-4 on Kaplan’s model of engagement. Furthermore, such projects often result from the
initiative of an individual pre-school teacher, primary school teacher or community worker.
This is supported by research in Slovenia (Vonta et al. 2012) which explored the degree to
which preschools in Slovenia are connected to older people in the local community. There
were only a few isolated initiatives found whereby older adults were invited to take part in
activities with the children (Vonta et al, 2012).

Civil society groups can play a critical role in developing and sustaining relationships among
generations, which contributes to building social capital in communities. In the public sphere
innovative intergenerational practice can be observed where a number of autonomous
agencies representing different age groups and sectors use the same premises or outdoor
space and collaborate in a range of social and learning activities.

The idea of different age groups sharing the same space with inspired by a Kindergarten
for all Ages project in Spain. Initially thought of as just-for-children services, this innovative
Kindergarten project has challenged the local community to think of kindergartens as places
for all ages, within multi and inter-generational contexts where older people get involved as
volunteers and enrich the learning for the children and their own development.
A similar initiative in Italy is the Intergenerational Centre Casetta Maritati, which has been
active since 2007 - a place where children, parents and grandparents can participate in
recreational activities offering possibilities for building relationships between generations.
The centre is surrounded by a games park, has a warm and welcoming atmosphere, with
small multi-purpose areas, where rooms and spaces are organised to respond to different
purposes. There children from 0 years to 14 years with their parents, grandparents,
childminders and older people can meet to play, read, and learn
The Slovenian project Hand in Hand ran from 2009-2011 during which time two
kindergartens, four elementary schools, two high schools and three nursing homes in the
Koroška region collaborated on a range of activities. These included creating flower beds,
joint art projects, learning about herbs, learning German together and preparing musical
and cultural events. Secondary school students visited elderly people, interviewed them
and wrote down their life stories thus getting an insight into life after World War II (Narat et
al, 2012).
22
Innovative projects often develop from the vision and energy of people already active
in community contexts. Additionally many writers have highlighted that intergenerational
practice releases the potential of older people to contribute positively to their community
and has spin-off benefits for other community projects (Granville, 2002; Hatton-Yeo, 2007;
Kaplan, 2002; Stanton and Tench, 2003, cited in Springate et al, 2008, 13-14).
Outdoor play and learning involving community volunteers would seem to offer rich
possibilities for intergenerational contact and broad community benefits. Three such
gardening and outdoor learning projects involving young children and older people are
briefly described. An Irish project that connected local government, participants from 2 years
up and community volunteers, aimed to encourage environmental education, to contribute
to Louth County Council’s profile as an Age-Friendly County and to promote relationships
between community members of different ages through activities which encourage social
interaction. Within the project, three biodiversity gardens were developed by gardeners of
all ages within the communities, in a local Primary school, a retirement home and a secret
garden beside the village playground. The participants undertook gardening workshops,
shared life experiences and organised special events such as an intergenerational parade
and a celebration of National Tree Week. Recorded benefits are collaborations between the
local authority, schools and community groups, a collective feeling of achievement, and the
development of new friendships among participants (Finn and Scharf, 2012).
A recent initiative in the Netherlands has been the development of Generation Gardens, a
place where people of all ages do gardening together on a regular basis. Three documented
Generation Gardens now exist in The Hague (2010), Amersfoort (opened 2011) and Utrecht
(opened 2012). These have involved collaborative working between two or more of the
following: childcare centres, afterschool services, schools, colleges, old people’s homes
or retirement homes, community centres, local housing corporations and municipalities.
Benefits suggested relate to health and wellbeing of both old and young; lower levels of
isolation among residents in old people’s homes, more positive role models of older people
for children, greater awareness of growing food and healthy eating and an enhanced feeling
of community and collaborative working (Verspeek, 2010; Both, 2011).
An intergenerational project that has been systematically evaluated is a project to
renew and revitalise a public park in the city of Aveiro in Portugal. The aim of the project
is to preserve the city’s historical, ecological and social richness through the promotion of
intergenerational activities and relationships. The project was designed to be appealing to
all ages by including walking and educational trails in the park, a family tree, and activities
to attract all ages. Benefits which were identified by participants and visitors to the park,
included joy at seeing the park come ‘alive’, fostering community identity, offering a
communal meeting place; thereby increasing inter and intragenerational interaction. Other
benefits include the transmission of cultural and historical heritage through sharing of
memories with younger generations. The project had approximately 11,540 participants, 23
per cent of whom were children, 19 per cent young people; 41 per cent adults and 18 per
cent seniors. In total 45 partners and stakeholders were involved (Vieira & Guerra, 2012).
When intergenerational thinking is built into the planning and design stages of community
centres and public spaces opportunities are created for deep and enduring interaction
involving all ages. The Castlehaven Intergenerational Forum is a multi-age and multi-cultural
initiative in Camden, London where different age and ethnic groups all use the same
23
premises and organise joint projects under the direction of twelve local people of varying
ages. All participants are in a familiar, safe, neutral space. Good policies and training have
been established and the project has also resulted in an increase in volunteers of all ages.
This could be termed a community for all ages (‘Castlehaven’, London Borough of Camden,
2009).
While the Castlehaven project seeks to embed intergenerational learning at a conceptual
and planning level, all intergenerational projects have the capacity to create social capital
and enhance understanding across all ages.

Older people’s roles as guardians of knowledge, traditions and skills are central in a learning
society. Older people are a vital link with heritage, history and cultural and give children
a sense of identity and perspective. Older people have acquired life skills and experience
that might be relevant to young people particularly in a rapidly changing society and in the
current challenging economic circumstances. Innovative intergenerational learning can
make available mature adult experiences to vulnerable young people and promote positive
face-to-face interactions in an increasingly virtual world. In this case the emphasis is less on
the relationships and more on the perspectives and resource that older people represent.
Older people can be considered as serving in the capacity as tutors, mentors and resource
persons.

In Italy concern about the loss of art and handicraft skills has led to projects where older people
teach traditional craft skills to school children – as a way of preserving a rich educational
heritage (TUCEP, 2011). In the Libro di Storia Vivente project (The Living History Book) in
Belmonte, Sabina the centre for older people and the primary school worked together in
order to produce a book of living history. The narratives of the elders were collected through
recordings and later transformed into literary texts. It also contains oral tales, local legends,
poems and rhymes composed to pass on values and knowledge to children. All contributions
were read and presented at the primary school and children responded with thoughts,
drawings, small nursery rhymes and real stories.
The universality of play and its legacy over time was identified as an important aspect of
culture that could bring young and old together to explore how play has changed over time
and what factors are affecting contemporary children’s play (see Play Memories, Centre for
Intergenerational Practice, Europe wide resources ‘Reference Section’)
An Irish Local History Programme based in Ballymun, Dublin also recognised older
people as a source of historical knowledge about locality. It aimed to build connections
between younger and older people and reduce isolation of older people by encouraging
voluntary activity, to enhance pupils’ experience of history and familiarise teachers with the
locality. In practice, older volunteer residents visited local primary schools to talk about their
experience of school, growing up and life in Ballymun when they moved to the area (Finn
and Scharf, 2012).
The concerns raised about the possible loss of heritage, traditional skills, cultural values,
traditional games and play and knowledge of local history go beyond local intergenerational
initiatives to national concerns. Local intergenerational projects draw our attention to
24
important policy questions in relation to curricula at national level. For example one of
the projects (The Ballymun project) illustrated the benefits for all generations including the
teachers.
4 Recognising the roles of grandparents in young children’s lives

Grandparents play a central part in the nurturance and socialisation of their grandchildren.
Grandparents’ role as listener, story teller, conduit of family and social history is seen as
complementary to the role of parents. This can be particularly significant when a parent
is absent or unavailable for considerable periods of time as a result of family breakdown,
illness or migration. Yet, these roles can be enacted by older people interacting with young
children with whom there is no kin relationship. This can be thought of as a form of social
grandparenthood and is illustrated in the Grandparent Day described above.

Older people who are grandparents are central to many intergenerational programmes
in preschools, kindergartens and schools. The Grandad Project in secondary schools in
Stockholm (Bostrom, 2003) reflects the role of the social grandparent. In this project older
males from the community are employed to assist teachers by providing care for the pupils.
While the activities they engage in are of a social character and the ‘Grandads’ do not teach
them formally, pupils interact with these older people as role models and friends
Grandparents can be involved in what is termed family learning which benefits families
and the community as a whole. Recognising the active care role, which many grandparents
take on either by choice but often by circumstances, intergenerational projects can offer
support to grandparents in their role as carers for grandchildren. One example identified in
the literature review, is a grandparents support group during school holidays, which resulted
in the older people offering and receiving peer support; finding new areas of interest; seeing
positive changes in the children’s behaviour and offering structure to their caring tasks
during school holidays (Bringing Generations Together in Wales, 2012, p 22). A Polish study
(Skura, 2009) focused on intergenerational dialogue between older people (grandparents)
and school-aged children (grandchildren). Grandparents perceived that the project gave
them recognition and helped them to feel useful and the grandchildren acknowledged the
integrating role of their grandparent/s in organising family meetings and festivities.
An example of a pre-school based intergenerational project that links the roles of
biological grandparent, volunteer grandparent and less active grandparent/older person
was developed in the UK. A programme for preschoolers and older people was designed
to promote three types of prosocial behaviour in the children: sharing, cooperating, and
helping. There was interaction involving natural grandparents in the preschool, regular older
volunteers, competent older visitors, less able elders in a nursing home and pre-school
children and their teachers. Benefits that were detected during the project were increased
prosocial behaviours in the children, and providing positive and realistic information about
older people and ageing (Lambert et al, 1990, 2004).
The above is a good example of tapping the resource that grandparents/older people
represent at local level in cooperation with educational settings, and widening the benefits
through the idea of social grandparenthood and active ageing.
25
Intergenerational learning offers a more experiential and innovative approach to learning for
children where they actively engage with people in meaningful exchanges. Such programmes
complement the more traditional curricula and offer more active learning opportunities
which are considered to be educationally beneficial and where the children and older people
co-construct knowledge. For older people it operationalises the idea of education as an
enterprise for life and can be an empowering experience. Such programmes can be based
on a philosophy of mutual regard and equality, recognising the unique perspectives of both
groups. An important aspect of intergenerational learning is the opportunity for fun and
enjoyment when teaching and learning roles are more open. Older people have acquired
life skills and experience that might be relevant to young people. Young people on the other
hand offer fresh, innovative and forward-looking perspectives for the future (Murphy, 2012).

A project in East London that investigated the learning exchanges between 3 to 6-year-old
children and their grandparents found that learning interactions were co-constructed by
children and grandparents within a relationship of mutuality. Touch was found to be an
important method of communication. The intergenerational exchange developed concepts
and skills being taught formally thereby complementing the role of the school (Kenner et al,
2007).
In the Cultural and Social Centre of Mangualde in Portugal, 5-year-old children
get together with the older people from the day care centre, with the aim of promoting
interaction and sharing of knowledge. Both groups have the opportunity to share what
they know: the older people teach their old traditions through the passage of wisdom and
memories, and the children can teach some things which will update and enrich the older
adults. Some of the activities are sessions of stories, tongue twisters, proverbs, games, songs,
crafts (Paróquia de Mangualde, 2008).
An Italian project, Doing together, Rivoli Pre-school and local associations started when
a home for older and disabled people was built next to the pre-school centre. The children
visited the old people’s home once a week and learnt to socialise with disabled and older
people where great importance was given to the experimentation of different artistic
expression and languages such as painting, music, and dancing.
The project The Never Ending Story, also in Italy, in Sestri Levante in the province of Genova,
involved children (age 6 to 10 years), working together with teachers, artists, craftsmen,
social workers, residents of old people’s homes, each with their own skills and capacities.
Older people told children stories and legends of past times and these were used to create
a piece of art work. The teachers, children and older people reflected on the stories, which
were transformed into drawings. The drawings were presented to the 250 children and all
contributed to the creation of a 12 metre long ceramic panel. The art work was installed
in the old people’s residence, and strong connections were made between the older
storytellers and the young listeners.
In Ireland, a project Sligo Arts and Health involving Primary school children (8 to 12-year-
olds) and local older residents (aged 55 to 80+ ) provided an opportunity to collaborate with
professional artists and to explore their identity, where they live and their sense of place and
community. The main rationale of the project was to connect people who may not otherwise
26
have had any previous access to the Arts. The aims were to enhance social relationships, to
improve health, to promote greater understanding of health and well-being using creative
projects, to celebrate creativity in older age and to provide work for professional artists. The
project provided opportunities for older people to discover new ways to express themselves
(Finn and Scharf, 2012).
Reading initiatives to help younger children develop literacy are often located in school
settings. However, our review indicated that nonformal and informal settings such as the
local library and the home provide rich opportunity for intergenerational and family learning
focussing on early literacy and story telling. Here too mutual and shared learning are often
evident.
An example of a reading initiative in a community setting under the motto ‘Life Long
Learning’ was found in the Netherlands. Volunteer older people organise a weekly interactive
story book reading session in a local library in the city of Leiden with children aged 1 to
6 years and their parents. Volunteers are happy to share their love of books to stimulate
children’s language and literacy development. Many of the children and parents who
participate do not speak Dutch as their first language and the sessions facilitate a relaxed
opportunity to listen to and practice Dutch and become familiar with the other services the
library, music, culture and arts centre offers.
In the Tortosa Intergenerational Storytelling Project in Spain the goal has been to encourage
reading as a strategy to combat school failure, to encourage intergenerational links by
involving older people in the community and to promote inter-cultural contact reflecting the
diversity of the town’s population. The older volunteers visited the library on a weekly basis
to rehearse, prepare and tell the stories. The cognitive exercises in the project can serve to
enhance the older people’s self-esteem and promote better cognitive functioning.
From a pedagogical standpoint, it can be argued that different types of generation-
specific knowledge can enrich the learning process of all generations. These examples
illustrate different ways of learning which use non-traditional teachers and learners, and
non-traditional sites of learning. Rather than the focus being on building relationships,
the aim is primarily to develop innovative pedagogical and creative methodologies. What
is important is that continuous cohorts of young and old experience this type of learning
and that it becomes embedded in pedagogical practice and in a variety of educational,
social care and civil society settings. However, it should be noted that a research study of
intergenerational learning projects in the UK and Portugal questioned the learning potential
of projects and the extent to which all age groups had benefitted from the projects (Harper
and Hamblin, 2010).
27
5 Conclusions & Questions
In the course of researching for this review early confirmation was obtained about the lack
of research and evaluation data on extra-familial intergenerational learning involving young
children and older people, as measured by the small number of references found in the
academic literature. However, the experience and broad networks of the consortium provided
access to a wide range of more informal documentation and evidence illustrating a limited
number of examples focusing specifically on children aged 8 years and under. An important
conclusion of the review is that the contribution of young children to intergenerational
learning is an issue that merits more attention.
Promoting opportunities for active ageing, recognising the capacity of children to be
agents in their own learning and creating spaces in communities where young and old can
meet and interact are the key elements that must be integrated to develop intergenerational
learning programmes. Building critical capacity over time will require key sectors such as
schools, care settings and civil society groups to recognise the potential of intergenerational
learning. The TOY Project will provide exemplars of innovative practice that will demonstrate
what can be achieved. The networking involved in making contacts with a range of civil
society groups across seven EU countries will itself stimulate interest and discussion on what
is possible. The role of the middle generation may be critical in facilitating such programmes
(Narat et al. 2012). Therefore, parents, teachers, early childhood practitioners, social care
practitioners are important target groups for the TOY project. They will be encouraged
and supported to exploit opportunities for further intergenerational learning in their work
at local and sectoral level. At local government level planning for communities and public
spaces requires awareness of the benefits of all generations meeting and interacting.
Specific questions and challenges will arise for the TOY project in the following areas:
• The dearth of intergenerational projects specifically focusing on children aged 8 and under
may indicate possible limitations of intergenerational learning with this age group.
This could suggest that mixed ages and the involvement of the middle generation are
necessary for intergenerational activities involving young children.
• Developing awareness of the benefits of and the skills required for intergenerational practice
involving young children and older people will be addressed.
• Intergenerational projects appear to be highly dependent on the commitment and
innovativeness of key individuals. The Positive Deviance Action Research will further
illuminate this issue.
• Intergenerational learning is a different approach to teaching and learning in schools
which presents a challenge to traditional methodologies and vested interests. The
intergenerational learning approach could add value to the more traditional education
model. However it demands time for planning, monitoring and evaluation.
• Across Europe there is regional variation in patterns and expectations of intergenerational
living. How this translates into intergenerational learning practice will be further explored.
• As intergenerational projects often have many aims, the possible benefits have to be
considered more widely than from solely a specific learning perspective e.g. environmental
sustainability
• In general, women are much more involved in the caring and education of young children, in
formal, nonformal and informal settings. It may be more difficult to involve older men in
28
developing intergenerational projects with young children.
• The issue of safeguarding and risk for young children is an important ethical and practice
issue in many countries and may act as a disincentive to older people becoming involved
in intergenerational projects.
• It was difficult to find examples of intergenerational learning involving young children which
had been evaluated. This means that lessons learnt may not have been assimilated in
planning new initiatives.
Based on the findings from this review and the Positive Deviance Action Research we
will develop capacity building modules for practitioners and organisations and will support
the development of pilot actions which will be evaluated. All learning from the TOY project
will be disseminated widely and will inform further practice and policy in this area.
29
References
Akademia Rozwoju Filantropii w Polsce. (2007). Współpraca z wolontariuszami 50+. Poradnik dla organizacji i
instytucji. Retrieved from http://www.zysk50plus.pl/storage/fck/file/50_plus_publikacja_2.pdf
Barrett, A., G. Savva, V. Timonen, and R. Kenny (Eds) (2011). Fifty Plus in Ireland 2011: First results from the Irish
Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA). Dublin: Trinity College.
Beier, L. Hofäcker, D., Marchese, E. Rupp, M. (2010). Family Stuctures & Family Forms – An Overview of Major
Trends and Developments. Bamberg. Working Report on www.familyplatform.eu
Beth Johnson Foundation. (2011). A Guide to Intergenerational Practice. UK: Beth Johnson Foundation.
Bostrom, A. (2003). Lifelong Learning and Social Capital-From theory to practice. Institute of International
Education, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Both, K. (2011). Een generatietuin in Amersfoort. The Netherlands: Springzaad. Retrieved from http://www.
springzaad.nl/actueel_verderlezen.php?id=63
Brannen, J. (2003). Towards a typology of intergenerational relations: continuities and change in families. Sociology
Review, September, 13, 1.
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. 2 (2) 151-165.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Butts, D. (2007). Intergenerational Programs and social Inclusion of the elderly. In M. Sanchez (ed)
Intergenerational Programmes - Towards a society for all ages. Social Studies collection, no. 23. Barcelona: La
Caixa Foundation.
Centrum Badania Opini Publicznej. (2012). Rola dziadków w naszym życiu. Komunikat z badań. Retrieved from
http://www.cbos.pl/PL/publikacje/raporty.php
Coombs, P.A., & Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking rural poverty: How nonformal education can help. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Council of European Union. (2010). Council conclusions on active ageing: 3019th Employment, social policy, health
and consumer affairs. Council meeting Luxembourg, 7 June 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.consilium.
europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/114968.pdf
Davis Smith, J. (1999). A background paper for discussion at an expert group meeting. New York: United Nations
Volunteers, November 29-30.
Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education
for the Twenty-first Century. UNESCO
Di Pietro, D. (2012) Setting up an Exchange: Guidebook to Senior Volunteering Abroad, The Merry “Play” of Senior
Volunteering Stage by Stage: The Seven Network.
European Commission. (2000). Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2007). It is always a good time to learn, Action Plan on Adult learning.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Commission and the Committee of the Regions.
European Commission. (2012). Eurobarometer 378. Active Ageing. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_
opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_378_sum_en.pdf
European Commission. (2012). Eurostat. Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations: A Statistical Portrait of
the European Union 2012. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EP-11-001/
EN/KS-EP-11-001-EN.PDF
European Network of Intergenerational Learning (ENIL). (2011). Heidelberg Workshop. www.ENLL.eu
Faure, E. et al. (1972). Learning to be - the world of today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO.
Finn & Scharf. (2012). Intergenerational Programmes in Ireland: An Initial Overview. Ireland: Irish Centre for Social
Gerontology, National University of Ireland, Galway.
Gli anziani incontrano i bambini. (2011). Libro di storia vivente, Belmonte in Sabina. Italy: Collection of narratives.
http://www.lua.it/files/2012/120110-BelmonteInSabina.pdf
Granville, G. & Ellis, S.W. (1999). Developing theory into practice: researching intergenerational exchange.
Education and Aging, 14 (3): 231-248.
Granville, G. (2002). A Review of Intergenerational Practice in the UK. Stoke-on-Trent: Beth Johnson Foundation.
Growing Up in Ireland. (2011). National Longitudinal Study of Children. Ireland: The Economic and Social Research
Institute/Trinity College Dublin.
Guerts, T. (2012). Grandparent-grandchild relationships in the Netherlands: a dynamic and multi-generational
perspective, unpublished PhD research. The Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit. Retrieved from: http://dare.ubvu.
vu.nl/handle/1871/35440
30
Hank, K. & Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren. Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health,
Ageing, and Retirement in Europe, Journal of Family Issues 30, 53-73.
Harper, S. & Hamblin, K. (2010). Innovative Approaches in Intergenerational Interaction and Learning. Oxford
Institute of Aging & Fundaçao Calouste Gulbenkian.
Hatton-Yeo, A. & Ohsako, T. (2000). Intergenerational Programmes: Public Policy and Research Implications: An
International Perspective. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Hatton-Yeo, A. (2006). Intergenerational Programmes: an Introduction and Examples of Practice. UK: Beth Johnson
Foundation.
Hatton-Yeo, A. (2007). Intergenerational Programmes, Intergenerational Solidarity and Social Cohesion. In M.
Sanchez (ed) Intergenerational Programmes - Towards a society for all ages. Social Studies collection, no. 23.
Barcelona: La Caixa Foundation.
Hoff, A. (2007). Intergenerational Learning as an Adaptation Strategy in Aging Knowledge Societies. In: European
Commission (ed.) Education, Employment, Europe. Warsaw: National Contact Point for Research Programmes
of the European Union, pp.126–129.
Hollywood, M. (2004). Generations as partners. Working with Older People, 8(1), 12-13.
Home-Start Ireland. (2008). Home-Start Ireland. Annual Report. http://www.homestartireland.ie/
Hutchins, R.M. (1968). The Learning society. London: Frederik A. Praeger, Publishers.
Jessel, J. (2009). Family structures and intergenerational transfers of learning: changes and challenges. London:
Department of Education Studies, University of London Goldsmith College.
Kaplan, M.S. (2002). Intergenerational programs in schools: considerations of form and function. International
Review of Education 48 (5): 305-334.
Kaplan, M. (2004). Toward an intergenerational way of life. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 96 (2), 5-9.
Kenner, C Ruby, M, Jessel, J Gregory, E & Tahera, A. (2007). Intergenerational learning between children and
grandparents in East London. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5 (3), 219-243.
Kernan, M. & van Oudenhoven, N. (2010). Community based early years services: the golden triangle of informal,
non-formal and formal approaches. Background paper, Eurochild Members Exchange Seminar on Early Years
Education and Care, Ensuring Quality the Path for Early Years in Europe and the role of Community Based
Services, 29 Sept. – 1 Oct. 2010, Tallinn, Estonia.
Lambert, D. J., Dellmann-Jenkins, M., & Fruit, D. (1990, 2004). Planning for contact between the generations: An
effective approach. The Gerontologist, 30(4), 553-556.
Laslett, P. (1996). A Fresh Map of Life – the Emergence of the Third Age. UK: Macmillan Press.
Linking Generations Northern Ireland. (2010). Report January 2010 – June 2010. Newtownards: LGNI.
Linking Generations Northern Ireland. (2011). Promoting Intergenerational Practice across Northern Ireland by
bringing generations together. 2009-2011 Activity Booklet. Newtownards: LGNI.
Linking Generations Northern Ireland. (2011). Promoting Intergenerational Practice across Northern Ireland by
brining generations together. Belfast: LGNI.
Living Streets. (2009). No Ball Games Here (or Shopping or Talking to their Neighbours): How UK streets have
become no-go areas for our communities. London: Living Streets.
London Borough of Camden. (2009). Intergeneraional Working in the London Borough of Camden: Project Profiles
2006-2008. London: Borough of Camden.
Martin, K., Springate, I. & Atkins, M. (2010). Intergenerational practice: outcomes and effectiveness. (LGA Research
Report) Slough: NFER.
McConnell & Hatton –Yeo. (2009). The Role of Intergenerational Initiatives in Reducing Fear of Crime. Northern
Ireland: Community Safety Unit.
McGill, P. (2010). Illustrating ageing in Ireland north and south: Key facts and figures. Belfast: Centre for Ageing
Research and Development in Ireland.
Melchior, M. (2013). Omringd met vertroetelzorg (Surrounded by pamperinig), De Volkskrant newspaper, 2 March
2013.
Narat, T., Boškić, R., Rakar, T., Boljka, U., Kobal Tomc, B. (2012). Medgeneracijska solidarnost v skupnosti: analiza
stanja in priprava predlogov. Ljubljana: Social Protection Institute of Republic of Slovenia.
Newman, S & Hatton-Yeo, A. (2008). Intergenerational Learning and the Contributions of Older People. Ageing
Horizons, Issue No. 8, Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Pittsburgh and Beth Johnson Foundation.
Oppelar, J. & Dykstra, P.A. (2004). Contacts between grandparents and grandchildren. The Netherlands Journal of
Social Sciences, 40: 91-113.
Pain, R. (2005). Intergenerational Relations and Practice in the Development of Sustainable Communities. Durham:
International Centre for Regional Regeneration and Development Studies.
31
Paróquia de Mangualde. (2008). Encontro Intergeracioanal. Self-archived work. Portugal: Centro de dia da
Paróquia de Magualde. Retrieved from http://geral.paroquiademangualde.pt/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=363:encontro-intergeracional&catid=20:actividades&Itemid=31
Pinazo, S. And Kaplan, M. (2007). The benefits of intergenerational programmes. In M. Sanchez (ed)
Intergenerational Programmes - Towards a society for all ages. Social Studies collection, no. 23. Barcelona: La
Caixa Foundation.
Pinazo-Hernandis, S. (2011). Intergenerational Learning: A Way to Share Time, Experiences, and Knowledge. A Field
to Develop. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(1), 115-116. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.544625
Preisser, R. (2011). Approaches and ways of intergenerational learning. Grundtvig Multilateral Network. http://
www.enll.eu/upload/document_files/Intergenerational_Learning.pdf [March 2013]
Quality and Evaluation National Institute [Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación]. (2001). Students’
After-school Activities out of School Timetable. Spain: INCE (11).
Rao, V.K.R.V. (1979). The universality of lifelong education. Inaugural address delivered to the expert’s meeting on
lifelong education,18 August 1970. New Delhi: Asian Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, pp. 3-11
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saraceno, C., Olagnero, M. & Torrioni, P. (2005). First European Quality of Life Survey. Families, Work and Social
Networks. European Foundation for Improving Working and Living Conditions. Luxembourg: Luxembourg
Office for Official Publications.
Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. (2007). Adult’s Attitudes towards Contact with Children
and Young People. Edinburgh: Rocket Science.
Skolvert. (2000). Lifelong Learning and Lifewide Learning. Stockholm: National Agency for Education.
Springate, I., Atkinson, M. and Martin, K. (2008). Intergenerational Practice: a Review of the Literature (LGA
Research Report F/SR262). Slough: NFER.
Stanton, G. and Tench, P. (2003). Intergenerational storyline: bringing the generations together in North Tyneside.
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1, 1, 71–80.
Timonen, Doyle and O’ Dwyer. (2009). The role of grandparents in divorced and separated families. School of
Social Work and Social Policy. Ireland: Trinity College Dublin.
TUCEP. (2011). C.A.I.R.O.C.S. Competenze per L’apprendimento Intergenerazionale e Reti Di Opportunità per La
Coesione Sociale. [Skills For Intergenerational Learning And Opportunities Networks For Social Cohesion].
Activities Report. Self-archived work. Retrieved from http://www.tucep.org/archivio.php
UNESCO (2001) Medel-Anonuevo, C, Ohsako, T. and Mauch, W. . Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century.
Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education.
UNITRE. (2012). Associazione Nazionale de)lle Università della Terza Età - UNITRE. Retrieved from http://www.
unitre.net/nazionale/nazionale.html.
Vaupel, J.W. (2010). Biodemography of human ageing. Nature, 464, 7288, 536-542.
Vels Heijn, A. (2011). All together now! Intergenerationeel leren in het museum. Retrieved from www.
cultuurnetwerk.nl/producten_en_diensten/dag_van_de_cultuureducatie/2011/documenten/Middagsessie_3_
All%20together%20now-herzien.pdf
Verspeek, C. (2010). Handboek Generatietuin, Handreiking bij het ontwikkelen van een generatietuin, waar
kinderen en ouderen samen tuinieren [Handbook for Generation Gardens. Guidelines for the development
of a generation garden where children and older people can do gardening together]. The Hague: Ministry for
Economics, Agriculture and Innovation.
Vieira, S. & Guerra, S. (2012). Dinamizar os parques da cidade através de atividades intergeracionais: o Parque
Infante Dom Pedro, cidade de Aveiro, Portugal. Revista Temática Kairós Gerontologia, v. 15, n. 1. 135-156.
Retrieved from http://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/kairos/article/view/12837
Villar, F. & Faba, J. (2012). Draw a Young and an Older Person: Schoolchildren’s Images of Older People. Educational
Gerontology, 38(12), 827-840. doi:10.1080/03601277.2011.645445
Vonta, T., Geissa, C., Hrabar, T., Obid, N., Štrukelj, K., Trbižan, T. (2012). Integration of older adults in activities of
preschool institutions. Unpublished research, carried out in the frame of Master’s Program Early Learning at
Faculty of Education. Slovenia: University of Primorska.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: MA.
Harvard University Press.
Welsh Local Government Association and Beth Johnson Foundation. (2012). Bringing generations together in
Wales. UK: WLGA.
World Health Organisation (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Adopted at Madrid, Spain for WHO,
World Health Organisation. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: a guide. WHO.
32
Additional Websites by Country
Italy
Il racconto infinito (2012). La Fontana dei nonni. Project work. Andersen Festival. Artificio 23. http://www.
alfredogioventu.it/, http://www.andersenfestival.it/2012/il-racconto-infinito-la-fontana-dei-nonni/. Visual report:
http://icsestrilevante.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/la-fontana-dei-nonni1.swf [March 2013]
Nonnet: orti urbani digitali (Regional program on the environmental education): http://www.lecobollettino.it/orti_di_
citta_a_pontecagnano_faiano.html [March 2013]
Public intergenerational center Casetta Maritati – Aribandu Coop. Soc. Onlus http://www.aribandus.com/index.
php?cpath=16_23 [March 2013]
http://portale.comune.verona.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=18123&tt=verona [March 2013]
Doing together (a meaningful project), Rivoli Pre-school and local associations: http://www.ddrivoli1.it/progetti/
progetti.htm [March 2013]
Netherlands
Grandparents Days in Childcare Centres: http://www.kinderopvanghumanitas.nl/kdvberendbotje/248/nieuws/
website/710/nieuws/5523/6574/ [March 2013]
http://www.hetpaleisje.nl/homepage/all-inclusive/opa-en-oma-week/ [March 2013]
Story reading in Leiden public library: http://www.bplusc.nl/bibliotheekstructuur/B-kinderen/voorlezen [March
2013]
Portugal
Creche e Jardim Infantil O Caracol. (2010). Projecto Intergeracional. Self-archived work. Creche e Jardim Infantil O
Caracol. Queluz: http://ocaracolcji.blogspot.pt/2010/05/projecto-intergeracional.html [March 2013]
Santa Casa da Misericórdia da Amadora. (2012). Projecto Intergeracional. Self-archived work.
Escola Luís Madureira. Amadora. Retrieved from http://www.misericordia-amadora.pt/content.
asp?startAt=2&categoryID=14&newsID=23&cnt_offset=undefined [March 2013]
Spain
Dansa intergeneracional, àvies i avis a l’escola (Intergenerational dance, grandmas and grandpas at school): http://
infantilespriu.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/dansa-intergeneracional-avies-i-avis-a-lescola/ [March 2013]
Kindergarten for all ages http://www.emil-network.eu/res/documents/resource/Kindergarten%20for%20All%20
Ages.pdf [March 2013].
The Tortosa Intergenerational Storytelling Project: http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.
jsp?catId=975&langId=es&mode=initDetail&initiativeId=460&initLangId=en [March 2013]
Europe wide
Play memories, Centre for Intergenerational Practices, UK: http://www.centreforip.org.uk/resources/case-studies
[March 2013]
33
Partners
Associate Partners
www.toyproject.net
For the research summary and more information on the TOY project visit the TOY website
where you will also find details of your local TOY Project.
34

Together Old and Young (TOY) : Arrow@Dit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Together Old and Young (TOY) : Arrow@Dit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Together Old and Young (TOY) : Arrow@Dit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dublin Institute of Technology

Together Old and Young (TOY)

Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.dit.ie/aaschsslrep

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0

Design and layout

2 Meanings & Definitions 13

3 Categorising Intergenerational Practice 17

4 Intergenerational Learning in Practice 20

5 Conclusions & Questions 29

The Positive Deviance approach is a problem solving, asset-based approach grounded

2 Determine the presence of PD individuals or groups.

Intergenerational learning is slowly establishing itself as a new interdisciplinary

Inclusion of both ‘grey’ and academic literature

It is important to consider developments in intergenerational learning in Europe within the

Changing demographics and social and family structures

The role of grandparents in Europe

Education and lifelong learning

Formal, Informal, Nonformal Learning

Formal education “the highly institutionalised, chronologically graded and hierarchically

Intergenerational Learning and Active Ageing

Considerable attention in the literature has been paid to categorising intergenerational

• Friendly and informal social encounters,

Springate et al (2008) provide a comprehensive model of intergenerational practice (see

Figure 1 – Intergenerational practice ©NFER

1 Building and sustaining relationships

Older People Intergenerational Learning in Young Children

Thematic Areas Settings

Figure 2 – TOY framework

1 Building and sustaining relationships

Selected project examples

2 Enhancing social cohesion in the community

Selected project examples

3 Facilitating older people as guardians of knowledge

Selected project examples

4 Recognising the roles of grandparents in young children’s lives

Selected project examples

Selected project examples

You might also like