Achieving digital inclusion of older adults through interest-driven curriculums
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One outcome of increased life expectancy is that older adults are leading active lives in their third age as they seize opportunities to learn new skills, pursue new interests and hobbies to challenge themselves. However, there are many misconceptions about older adults’ capabilities and aspirations, especially their attitudes towards technology. They are often misunderstood and seen to lack interest and motivation in the use of technology. Thus, this article examines interest-driven curriculums in order to achieve digital inclusion for older adults. Investigation methodology into this dilemma was best served with a mixed methods approach because, to date, there has been very little research about how technology could support older adults’ interests. The majority of the existing studies consulted were focused on school children in a classroom setting. Older adults can differ greatly in their general background and level of technical experience and knowledge. Consequently, it would be very difficult to conduct quantitative research with control groups to investigate single variables. In compensation, 131 older adults, five staff members and eight teachers participated in this study. Qualitative methods such as observations and interviews (one-on-one and focus group) provided a deeper insight into teachers’ experiences and teaching. Older adults were not always able to articulate their attitudes and problems with technology and consequently, observations were often a more effective means of data gathering. Finally, an Action Research approach was taken to trialling the concepts developed in the course of the investigation. This research comprised of four studies looked at expanding and extending on The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development by Hidi and Renninger (2006). The results show that when older adults are taught according to requests based on their pre-existing interests, it encourages long-term engagement of technology and ability to integrate technology into their everyday lives, thereby achieving digital inclusion amongst older adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».