Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uced20

Download by: [Simone DeVore] Date: 29 April 2016, At: 09:28

Childhood Education

ISSN: 0009-4056 (Print) 2162-0725 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Intergenerational Programming for YoungChildren and Older Adults: An Overview of Needs,Approaches, and Outcomes in the United States

Simone DeVore, Brooke Winchell & Jeannine M. Rowe

To cite this article: Simone DeVore, Brooke Winchell & Jeannine M. Rowe (2016)Intergenerational Programming for Young Children and Older Adults: An Overview of Needs,Approaches, and Outcomes in the United States, Childhood Education, 92:3, 216-225, DOI:10.1080/00094056.2016.1180895

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1180895

Published online: 25 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

216 \ Childhood Education

Intergenerational Programming for

Young Children and Older Adults

An Overview of Needs, Approaches, and Outcomes in the United States

© ra

corn

/Shu

tter

stoc

k

According to Generations United, a leading organization focused on improving

the lives of children, youth, and older people through intergenerational strategies,

intergenerational programs “purposefully bring together people of different

generations in ongoing, mutually beneficial, planned activities, designed to achieve

specified program goals.” At the heart of these programs is the understanding that

society is based on the giving and receiving of resources across the lifespan. Children

have developmental and educational needs, and so do older adults. When people of

all ages share their talents, support each other, and forge meaningful connections,

both individuals and communities benefit. This article reviews how intergenerational

programs have been organized in the United States and how they can positively affect

the developmental outcomes and well-being of young and old alike.

By Simone DeVore, Brooke Winchell, and Jeannine M. Rowe

Simone DeVore is Associate Professor and Brooke Winchelland Jeannine M. Rowe are Assistant Professors, Special Education,

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

May/June 2016 / 217

Many families caring for young children are also concerned about the well-being of adult family members 65 years or older (Moen, Elder, & Lüscher, 1995; Wisensale, 2003). These families fulfill

multiple day-to-day tasks to support the care of the youngest and the oldest in their midst. For young children, most families in the United States seek out of home care (Laughlin, 2013), which can be difficult to secure especially for children with disabilities (DeVore & Bowers, 2006). Older adults, who increasingly want to remain involved in their communities beyond retirement age, can significantly contribute to this care of young children (Wisensale, 2003; Yoshida & Henkin, 2012) to the benefit of both groups. In many countries, professionals who care for young children or older adults have begun to organize joint activities for both age groups, with the goal of enhancing the quality of care and education for both populations (Generations United, 2007; St. Ann Center for Intergenerational Care, 2011). A growing network of advocates for intergenerational (IG) activities are sharing ideas and resources about how to bring oldest and youngest generations together (Center for Intergenerational Practice, 2014). Educators and caregivers who organize IG activities do so to form, facilitate, and influence relationships that develop through shared common interests (Newman, Ward, Smith, Wilson, & McCrea, 1997). Organizers and researchers have realized that such shared activities can provide developmental benefits for both populations (Belgrave, 2011; Davidson & Boals-Gilbert, 2010; Jarrott & Bruno, 2003; Lee, Camp, & Malone, 2007). In the United States, IG activities engaging young children and older adults are usually organized by caregivers and educators who are supported by child care and older adult care program administrators (Newman, 1997). To learn how educators and caregivers in communities across the United States have brought together young children and older adults through organized IG activities that take place in preschools, child care centers, or graduated older adult care facilities, we reviewed materials published between 1995 and 2013. Databases searched included Academic Search Complete, Psych Info, ERIC, Education Source, and Social Work, all of which were accessed through EbscoHost. The primary key words we used were intergen*, program*, relation, older person or adult, and children. We reviewed journal articles, government reports, and agency reports that focused on IG program descriptions

and outcomes for children up to 9 years old and older adults age 65 and older. The purpose of this article is to share with childhood educators how IG activities have been organized in the United States. We discuss the benefits of shared activities engaging young children and older adults in terms of developmental outcomes and well-being of both populations. Readers will learn about (1) the rationale for organizing IG activities for young children and older adults, (2) documented outcomes for both populations, (3) a step-by-step process commonly used to coordinate activities that bring together young children and older adults, and (4) implications of findings for future research and practice.

Rationale for Organizing Intergenerational Activities Education and care professionals recognize the need to intentionally connect the oldest and youngest members in their communities when they consider the growing population of adults 65 years and older, the desire among retirees to actively engage in community life, young children’s schooling needs, geographic dispersion of families, and segregation of age groups. In the United States, the number of adults 65 years and older has increased from representing 12% percent of the total U.S. population in 2000 to 13% percent in 2010. Young children under 9 years old represented 14.1% percent of the population in 2000 and 13.4% percent in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Child care centers and schools can promote cross-generational friendships and mutual understanding among persons in both age groups (Ward, 1997). For young children, the opportunity to build friendships with older adults means developing empathy and understanding for older persons and better understanding of life cycle changes. Through shared experiences, young children can overcome misperceptions about older persons’ characteristics and develop accurate knowledge about the contributions older adults can make (Generations United, 2007; McCrea & Smith, 1997). Having increased opportunities for regular interactions with young children is especially critical for older adults who live in retirement communities or care facilities that are exclusively designed for people in their age group. The sense of worthlessness and isolation that some older adults experience can be offset by participation in organized IG activities. Shared activities provide opportunities for ongoing contact and communication between children and older adults,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

218 \ Childhood Education

which in turn provide greater opportunities for both populations to experience positive outcomes and learn from each other (Statham, 2009). Early childhood educators, social workers, health care providers, and scholars in the field of intergenerational studies have observed positive changes in young children and older adults participating in IG activities in the ways they understand each other, express attitudes, and engage in shared activities (Generations United, 2013b; Jarrott, 2011).

Documented Outcomes of IG Activities for Young Children and Older AdultsOutcomes of IG activities are evident in two areas. First, observers noted changes in attitudes toward the other age group. Second, scholars documented gains in engagement and developmental functioning for young children and older adults who participated in shared activities. Attitudes. The attitudes young children and older adults have toward each other may be affected by stereotypes (Gilbert & Ricketts, 2008; Laney, Wimsatt, Moseley, & Laney, 1999). Young children have been found to hold stereotypical ideas about characteristics of older adults, such as assuming that older adults are physically disabled (Laney et al., 1999). Older adults have been found to assume that they are not relevant in engaging in activities with young children, who they perceive as more skilled in such areas as computer applications and games (Xie et al., 2012). To study whether IG activities result in reduced stereotypes and increased understanding of young children and older adults, observers measured changes in the attitudes and opinions of both age groups toward each other. Attitudes of Children. Researchers found that after participating in IG activities, even for as brief a time as one summer, children were more comfortable approaching older adults. This included approaching older persons in community settings as well as outside the shared site where the IG activities took place. Children also more willingly participated in shared activities (Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, & Graham, 2005; Gilbert & Ricketts, 2008; Hayes, 2003; Holmes, 2009). Aday, Sims, McDuffie, and Evans (1996) measured children’s attitudes using the Children’s Perceptions of Aging and Elderly (CPAE) inventory. Children responded by agreeing or disagreeing with individual statements describing social, behavioral, and physical characteristics of older adults. Children who participated in IG activities made more positive statements about older adults than children who did not participate

in such programs. These findings were maintained even five years after the children’s participation in IG activities. In a quasi-experimental study, children who had participated in IG activities shared significantly more positive descriptions of sketches depicting older adults than children who attended a tradi-tional preschool program (Heyman, Gutheil, & White-Ryan, 2011). Lynott and Merola (2007) as-sessed young children’s opinions by compiling a list of 17 adjective pairs. The children were then asked to identify which pairs did the best job of describ-ing older adults; compared to the pre-study survey, opinions had improved. Changes were also found in children’s attitudes when researchers compared two cohorts of children three years after one group attended an IG preschool and the other had not. The children who had engaged in IG activities dem-onstrated higher levels of empathy toward older adults, indicating that IG activities provide children with skills to better understand older adults (Femia, Zarit, Blair, Jarrott, & Bruno, 2008). In a qualitative study, Gigliotti et al. (2005) reported increased comfort levels and reduced shyness of young children after IG activities. Based on interviews with families and young children, preschoolers demonstrated increased understanding of specific characteristics of older adults (e.g., being good readers, making good play-dough cakes, and telling great stories). In another study, families reported that young children did a better job following IG activities and showed greater comfort in interacting with older adults (Holmes, 2009). While three studies indicated no significant changes in attitudes among children (Belgrave, 2011; Middlecamp & Gross, 2002; Salari, 2002), the coding methods used to analyze children’s descriptions of older adults’ characteristics may have affected results, as older adults with disabilities using adaptive devices were accurately described by children as needing assistance, yet researchers coded those descriptions as negative comments (Femia et al., 2008). Attitudes of Older Adults. When studying attitudes of older adults before and after engaging in IG music activities with early elementary children, Belgrave (2011) found that older adults’ positive attitudes toward young children increased significantly, as indicated by results of the Age Group Evaluation and Description (AGED) Inventory. Dyadic conversations and movement activities were more beneficial than large-group singing and instrument playing activities. Older adults were observed interacting with children more comfortably over the course of the 10-week

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

May/June 2016 / 219

study phase. In a case study, observers at a shared-site program learned how staff, older adults, and young children interacted during IG activities. Older adults formed close relationships with young children and many appreciated children’s diverse viewpoints and suggestions for how to participate in shared activities (Jarrott & Bruno, 2007). Engagement and Skill Development. Engagement is defined by levels of involvement and interac-tive functioning that older adults and children demonstrate during or as a result of IG activities. Short-DeGraff and Diamond (1996) defined engage-ment according to observational categories of (1) positive social interactions, (2) solitary productive activity, and (3) nonsocial, nonproductive activity. Using these categories of engagement, the research-ers found that positive social interactions between children and older adults increased significantly while they engaged in joint activities. Using the Intergenerational Program Quality Assessment, Epstein and Boisvert (2006) found that successful IG activities promoted engagement when older adults and children met regularly in a shared location; were offered a wide variety of choices that included activities focused on process rather than product; and when participants, including staff, reflected be-fore and after activity implementation to determine needed modifications. Femia et al. (2008) found that children who participated in planned IG activities during preschool showed significantly higher func-tioning in social-emotional development as com-pared to children who attended single generation programs. When assessing children’s self-regulation and academic performance, differences between groups were not significant. In an earlier study, older adults were successful in serving as mentors while facilitating Montessori lessons to preschool-age children (Camp et al., 1997). Older adults showed increased levels of engagement during Montessori-based activities; however, the engagement levels returned to baseline once the IG activities were completed (Camp & Lee, 2011). In addition to increased engagement of both populations as a result of high-quality IG activities, older adults demonstrated increased tolerance and understanding of the younger generation (Epstein & Boisvert, 2006). Older adults were seen to engage more actively and display more positive affect during IG activities (Jarrott & Bruno, 2003).

A Step-by-Step Process Commonly Usedto Organize IG Activities Families caring for young children and older adults represent diverse groups, each shaped by unique

experiences such as recent immigration (Yoshida & Henkin, 2012), residing in urban or rural settings (Taylor & Bressler, 2000), or requiring out-of-home care for the youngest and/or oldest family members (Hirn, 2007). Responding to families’ individual priorities and needs has become an essential component of IG programming (Kemp, 2007; Lichter, 2013; Mitchell, 2007). To design quality intergenerational activities, professionals use a step-by-step process that involves (1) establishing community partnerships and finding a shared site for IG activities, (2) planning and implementing activities, (3) documenting results of IG activities, and (4) ensuring sustainability for future activities (Bressler, Henkin, & Adler, 2005; Generations United, 2013c; Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; Jarrott, Gigliotti, & Smock, 2006). The following section highlights each of the four steps commonly used to plan and implement IG activities. Establishing Community Partnerships and Shared Sites. Educators and caregivers who want to organize IG activities begin by building partnerships (Epstein & Boisvert, 2006; Jarrott et al., 2006; Kovacs & Lee, 2010) in which educators and caregivers work with community partners (e.g., program directors) toward the common goal of providing regular opportunities for IG contact between young children and older adults and choosing common settings to do so (Dellmann-Jenkins, 1997). Community partners have organized IG activities in various settings, including child care centers; preschools; facilities designed for older adults, such as continuing care retirement communities, adult day centers, and skilled nursing facilities; and shared sites that are designed to meet the needs of both populations (Davidson & Boals-Gilbert, 2010; Foster, 1997; Gayes, 2007; Hirn, 2007; Husser & Jarrott, 2005; Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; St. Ann Center for Intergenerational Care, 2011). Early on in the planning process, long-term financial and organizational commitments from all participating agencies are necessary. In many cases, universities initially sponsor programs through grants for innovative partnerships that bring together older adults in a community and young children at a university child care center (Jarrott et al., 2011; Kaplan & Larkin, 2004; Kovacs & Lee, 2010). Strong inter-agency partnerships and appropriate choice and organization of activities for the participants are major catalysts for prompting meaningful interactions (Rosebrook & Larkin, 2002). Planning and Implementing Activities. The second stage requires partners to plan and implement IG activities that are designed to meet young children’s education needs and provide

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

220 \ Childhood Education

opportunities for community participation by older adults (Belgrave, 2011; Joyner & DeHope, 2006). These activities can be either structured or unstructured. Structured activities focus on a specific type of curriculum, such as art, music, or reading, and are designed to bring children and older adults together in common sites and at specific times (Jarrott, 2011; Kuehne, 2003a). Such pre-planned activities allow educators and caregivers to focus on specific curriculum areas, such as an art or literacy class guided by specific teaching approaches or interventions. Montessori-based activities have been used to promote opportunities for older adults to take on more complex roles engaging with young children (Camp et al., 1997). Such roles include serving as mentors or instructors to the children during activities. The Montessori method was chosen to strengthen functional motor skills that participants from both age groups practice during shared activities (Camp & Lee, 2011; Lillard, 2005). Other structured IG activities revolve around subjects that are being cut in public schools, namely visual and performance forms of fine arts. Lynott and Merola (2007) reported using a multitude of artistic methods, including drawing, writing narratives, reading aloud, and performing plays. The older adults engaged in writing and sharing their own narratives in an elementary school setting; the children in turn performed a play for the older adults, reenacting certain historical events. From there, the children were asked to draw a picture of one of the older participants, and the project culminated with a video of photos taken throughout the course of the study. Unstructured activities are organic and evolve from opportunities for young children and older people to be together in a shared setting during informal visits. More free-flowing emergent approaches allow staff to discover interests and skills among participants; based on their interests, early childhood educators and staff facilitate the use of engaging art supplies, games, musical instruments, books, cooking materials, and any kinds of props (Hirn, 2007). In one case study, the art activities took the shape of a collaborative decision-making effort involving the children and adults (Heydon, 2007). Program implementers used the art class as a backdrop to create common ground between the groups—the children ranging in age from 8 weeks to 5 years. Eventually, the activity led to more informal interactions and deeper relationships. It appears that both structured and emergent activities can be successful; offering both types

of activities provides optimal opportunities for shared exploration of interests and skills, as long as activities are set up to benefit both age groups (Epstein & Boisvert, 2006; Jarrott, 2006, 2008; Kaplan & Larkin, 2004). In addition to organizing activities, educators and caregivers want to know how regular interactions benefit young children’s development and allow older adults access to meaningful networks of supports and life-enriching experiences (Jarrott, 2011; Kuehne, 2003b). Documenting Results of IG Activities. Ward (1997) suggested that organizers come together to determine how to document results of IG activities. The primary focus of documenting IG activities usually involves reviewing desired outcomes for young children, older adults, their families, and the community. For each of the respective age groups, professionals commonly identify social connections, engagement, and learning as desired outcomes (Bressler et al., 2005). Observations that are designed to capture how young children and older adults develop relationships, interact with each other, express interests and ideas, and problem solve together can provide rich information about the functioning and development of each participant. Professionals can capture interactions between participants through informal observation logs as well as through more formal approaches. More formal assessments that reveal the strengths of partnerships, accountability of professionals (Jarrott et al., 2011), and the extent to which IG activities are supported through community-wide collaboration can be valuable (Jarrott, 2006). Jarrott, Smith, and Weintraub (2008) developed an observation scale that professionals can use to assess the quality of interactions that occur within a specific IG setting and to reflect on implemented practices and desired outcomes. Through shared observations and ongoing assessments, professionals can document successful practices and promote the sustainability of IG activities. Ensuring Sustainability of IG Activities. The final stage in IG programming involves creating and securing ongoing sustainability. Professionals who are committed to sustaining IG activities need support from other community members (Jarrott, Kaplan, & Steinig, 2011). An ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) can highlight the specific roles and responsibilities of organizers and factors that affect their work. The three ecological systems are (1) micro-system level interactions between young children and older adults, their families, and care and education professionals; (2) meso-system level initiatives that guide IG research and practice; and (3) macro-system level guidelines

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

May/June 2016 / 221

derived through research, policies, and regulations that in turn inform IG practice. In the following section, we define each of the three systems and discuss specific factors that were found to impact the sustainability of IG activities (Jarrott, 2008). •Micro-systemlevelinfluencesonsustainability. Micro-system level variables include participants (i.e., young children and older adults) involved in IG activities as well as professionals (e.g., early childhood educators, older adult care staff) who plan, implement, and facilitate shared experiences. Researchers found that regularity and a shared sense of commitment toward organized IG activities are essential to program success. For example, proximal exchanges between older adults and young children are more likely to lead to mutually strong commitments when interactions occur on a regular (i.e., daily or weekly) basis. Jarrott (2006) found that when activities are optional for children and older adults, a sense of commitment is lacking. To spark interest and opportunities for developing friendships, participants must engage in regular activities that are embedded into daily routines (Generations United, 2013c). When professionals and families of participants display a shared sense of responsibility, IG activities have a better chance of being sustained beyond the first two years (Hayes, 2003). By striking a positive balance between structured and unstructured activities that allow children and older adults to express choices, facilitators can ensure that IG interactions persist and spark interest in forming friendships (Jarrott, 2006). Skills needed to facilitate optimal activities must be developed through carefully designed interdisciplinary pre- and in-service professional development that trainers carefully design. •Meso-systemlevelinfluencesonsustainability. Meso-system variables include agency-level components, such as the training and retention of staff as well as evaluation of IG activities. Researchers identified interdisciplinary training and ongoing assessment as major contributors to the sustainability of IG programs. Staff providing care and education for young children and older adults must have access to ongoing trainings that grow individual professionals’ intergenerational practices. Rosebrook and Larkin (2002) proposed six standards for training professionals: (1) knowledge of human development across the lifespan; (2) effective communication skills that support the development of IG relationships; (3) a commitment to collaboration and partnership; (4) integrated

knowledge from a variety of fields, including psychology, sociology, history, and the arts; (5) use of appropriate evaluation techniques; and (6) being a reflective and caring professional. These standards may be used to assess professional development needs of staff responsible for implementing and promoting IG activities. The identification of professional development needs can help in creating courses or workshops that focus on IG program development and practice (Jarrott, 2014). Well-trained professionals will contribute to the sustainability of IG activities (University of Pittsburgh, 2013). •Macro-systemlevelinfluencesonsustainability. Macro-level system variables include actions of persons who guide research and policy developments. Policies guiding best practices must be designed to support young children and older adults as well as researchers and educational institutions, as policy, research, and practice must inform each other to ensure the sustainability of IG programs. Research and policy are guided by emerging com-munity needs for actively bringing together older adults and young children through better coordinat-ed care and education. Research must guide actions that advocates and political groups outline to orga-nize and institutionalize IG activities (Generations United, 2013a). Individual states and communities must be creative in bringing together generations, agencies, institutions, and higher education pro-grams in favor of IG activities (Greengross, 2003). With better coordinated policies that are informed by research and practice at the macro-level, barriers to sustained best practices at meso- and micro-levels will be more easily overcome.

Implications of Findings for Future Researchand PracticeThe majority of reviewed IG programming efforts and outcomes focused on having young children and older adults practice communication skills dur-ing repeated and shared dyadic and small-group activities (Jarrott, 2011). We can say that as a result of planned IG activities, participants develop more positive attitudes toward and acceptance of the other age group (Generations United, 2007). Furthermore, young children and older adults become more en-gaged when they interact with each other during shared activities. Such enhanced engagement is known to result in young children’s increased em-pathy toward older adults and gains in social skills (Femia et al., 2008). Higher engagement contributes to the older adults’ well-being and sense of pur-pose, including for persons with dementia or other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

222 \ Childhood Education

Questions Organizers Can Ask to Guide Socially Just and Culturally Responsive Intergenerational (IG) Activities

When Planning and Implementing IG Activities

Community Leaders Should Ask Questions Like...

During stage one:

When establishing community partnerships and shared sites

- Who are the people in our community and what are the cultural groups they represent?

- Who needs to be part of the planning team to ensure full representation by all groups of people?

- What are ways to learn about the priorities and values of people who are not yet part of the IG planning process?

- Who is committed to creating a shared mission and commitment to launch and sustain IG activities?

- What are one or more possible common settings? - What are resources individual community groups and partners can contribute?

During stage two:

When planning and implementing activities

- What intergenerational activities should professionals promote so that young children gain greater knowledge of and appreciation for the values and priorities represented within the community?

- What contributions can older adults make to teach young children a new language or skills that are valued?

- What activities are professionals familiar with that allow children and older adults to make choices that are meaningful to them?

- What are structured activity ideas professionals want to explore? - What professional development needs do professionals have concerning culturally

relevant activities? During stage three:

When observing IG activities and reflecting on outcomes

- What insights can we gain from those who have been able to contribute to regular IG activities?

- What outcomes have we focused on to establish how well IG activities are working for both age groups (e.g., engagement during interactions, changes in attitudes)?

- What is working for professionals who engage both populations (e.g., designing activities based on participants’ interests)?

- What accomplishments can we celebrate to showcase achieved outcomes? - What data collection tools do we use to document the results of IG activities? - Who can we consult to inform the use/creation of functional assessment tools that

are culturally relevant? Who can write results meaningfully?During stage four:

When assuring sustainability of IG activities

- Who has been able to contribute to regular IG activities? - Who has expressed interest but has not yet participated? - Who has demonstrated strong commitment and interests in leading future

activities? - Who can be consulted to inform improved practices? - What resources do we need to build on existing partnerships and form new ones? - Who needs to learn about our IG program to advocate on our behalf?

Table 1

disabilities (Jarrott & Bruno, 2003). Overall, the findings regarding the impacts of IG are valuable. Unfortunately, however, many of the findings lack consideration for culturally responsive practices. The identification of culturally responsive IG practices is crucial at a time when young children and older adults represent a wide

variety of interests and priorities based on their individual cultural orientations, including differences in language abilities and developmental functioning (Genishi & Haas Dyson, 2013; Yoshida & Henkin, 2012). Today, children are rooted in many different cultural and linguistic origins and enter early care and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

May/June 2016 / 223

education settings with diverse backgrounds and orientations (Center for Early Care and Education Research: Dual Language Learners, 2005; Mbugua, Wadas, Casey, & Finnerty, 2004). Older adults express a wide spectrum of interests and desires for maintaining active lifestyles and a sense of purpose (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). By being responsive to the cultural and linguistic priorities and needs of the youngest and oldest members in their communities, professionals have the potential to identify and utilize community-focused practices that aid in organizing culturally relevant IG experiences (Larkin, 2002). In particular, we recommend that organizers ask a series of reflective questions throughout the IG planning and implementation process. The guiding questions we outline in Table 1 are informed by inclusive practices recommended by leading social justice organizations (Frattura & Capper, 2007). The questions provide a starting point for practitioners who are invested in planning, implementing, and maintaining IG activities. By responding to such questions, educators proactively include all families, children, and older adults in community-based IG activities and provide culturally meaningful experiences. The questions reflect values and intentions that Frattura and Capper (2007) identified as integral components of socially just organizations. Educators are encouraged to adapt and expand the questions to ensure that IG activities are informed by persons who represent all groups within a community. Persons representing different ages, all types of families, varying and unique ability levels, ethnicities, languages, geographic regions, life styles, orientations, health care needs, education, and experience must participate in decision-making processes for the IG program. Future research that examines how culturally responsive IG activities enrich interactions and benefit the development and well-being of young children and older adults will expand our knowledge of outcomes. As IG programs in early care and education and older adult services gain prominence, an increased focus on culturally responsive and valid practices is essential. The focus on culturally sensitive practice will certainly strengthen the field of intergenerational studies.

ReferencesAday, R., Sims, C. R., McDuffie, W., & Evans, E. (1996).

Changing children’s attitudes toward the elderly: The longitudinal effects of an intergenerational partners program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10(2), 143-151. doi:10.1080/02568549609594897

Belgrave, M. (2011). The effect of a music therapy intergenerational program on children and older adults’ intergenerational interactions, cross-age attitudes, and older adults’ psychosocial well-being. Journal of Music Therapy, 48(4), 486-508.

Bressler, J., Henkin, N., & Adler, M. (2005). Connecting generations, strengthening communities: A toolkit for intergenerational program planners. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Intergenerational Learning.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Camp, C., & Lee, M. (2011). Montessori-based activities as a trans-generational interface for persons with dementia and preschool children. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 366–373. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.618374

Camp, J., Judge, K., Bye, C., Fox, K., Bowden, J., Bell, M., . . . Mattern, J. (1997). An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. The Gerontologist, 37(5), 688-692.

Center for Early Care and Education Research: Dual Language Learners. (2005). Evaluating early care and education practices for dual language learners: A critical review of the research. Research Brief. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill.

Center for Intergenerational Practice. (2014). Training. Stoke on Trent, England: Beth Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.centreforip.org.uk/training

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). The state of aging and health in America 2013. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/aging

Davidson, S., & Boals-Gilbert, B. (2010). What age gap? Building intergenerational relationships. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 38(2), 23-29.

Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (1997). A senior-centered model of intergenerational programming with young children. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 16(4), 495-506. doi:10.1177/073346489701600407

DeVore, S., & Bowers, B. (2006). Childcare for children with disabilities: Families search for specialized care and cooperative childcare partnerships. Infants and Young Children, 19(3), 203-212.

Epstein, A. S., & Boisvert, C. (2006). Let’s do something together: Identifying the effective components of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 87-109. doi:10.1300/J194v04n03_07

Femia, E., Zarit, S., Blair, C., Jarrott, S., & Bruno, K. (2008). Intergenerational preschool experiences and the young child: Potential benefits to development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 272-287. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.05.001

Foster, K. B. (1997). Creating a child care center in a nursing home and implementing an intergenerational program. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED411053.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

224 \ Childhood Education

Frattura, E., & Capper, C. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Gayes, P. (2007). Young at heart. U.S. Catholic, 72(10), 30-33.

Generations United. (2007). The benefits of intergenerational programs. Fact sheet. Retrieved from www.gu.org

Generations United. (2013a). Generations United: Public poli-cy agenda for the 113th congress. Washington, DC: Author.

Generations United. (2013b). Intergenerational bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.gu.org/RESOURCES/Bibliography.aspx

Generations United. (2013c). Out of many, one: Uniting the changing faces of America. Generations United and the Generations Initiative. Washington, DC: Author.

Genishi, C., & Haas Dyson, A. (2013). Children, language, and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gigliotti, C., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S., & Graham, B. (2005). An intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and preschool children. Educational Gerontology, 31(6), 425-441. doi:10.1080/03601270590928161

Gilbert, C., & Ricketts, K. (2008). Children’s atti-tudes towards older adults and aging: A synthesis of research. Educational Gerontology, 34, 370-386. doi:10.1080/03601270801900420

Greengross, S. (2003). Intergenerational programmes as a global approach to social issues. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 11-13. doi:10.1300/J194v01n01_03

Hayes, C. (2003). An observational study in developing an intergenerational shared site program: Challenges and insights. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 113-132.

Heydon, R. M. (2007). Making meaning together: Multi-modal literacy learning opportunities in an inter-gen-erational art programme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(1), 35-62. doi:10.1080/00220270500422665

Heyman, J. C., Gutheil, I. A., & White-Ryan, L. (2011). Preschool children’s attitudes toward older adults: Comparison of intergenerational and traditional day care. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 435-444. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.618381

Hirn, D. (2007). Children’s family center: A shared-site intergenerational childcare program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5(2), 119-125.

Holmes, C. (2009). An intergenerational program with benefits. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 113-119. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0329-9

Husser, E., & Jarrott, S. (2005). Neighbors growing together: Vt intergenerational programs [motion picture].

Jarrott, S. (2006). Tried and true: A guide to successful intergen-erational activities at shared site programs. Retrieved from http://www.gu.org

Jarrott, S. (2008). Shared site intergenerational programs: Obstacles and opportunities. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6(3), 384-388.

Jarrott, S. (2011). Where have we been and where are we going? Content analysis of evaluation research of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(1), 37-52. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.544594

Jarrott, S. (2014). Project TRIP: Transforming relationships through intergenerational programs. Online training. Retrieved from http://www.intergenerational.clahs.vt.edu/trip/index.htmlJarrott, S., & Bruno, K. (2003). Intergenerational activities involving persons with dementia: An observational assessment. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 18(1), 31-37.

Jarrott, S., & Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs: A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26(3), 239-257. doi:10.1177/0733464807300225

Jarrott, S., Gigliotti, C., & Smock, S. (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a shared site in-tergenerational program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(2), 73-92. doi:10.1300/J194v04n02_06

Jarrott, S., Kaplan, M., & Steinig, S. (2011). Shared sites: Avenues for sharing space, place, and life experi-ence across generations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 343-347. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.619919

Jarrott, S., Morris, M., Burnett, A., Stauffer, D., Stremmel, A., & Gigliotti, C. (2011). Creating community capacity at a shared site intergenerational program: “Like a bare-foot climb up a mountain.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 418-434. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.619925

Jarrott, S., Smith, C., & Weintraub, A. (2008). Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational program-ming: The intergenerational observation scale. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6(4), 433-447.

Joyner, M., & DeHope, E. (2006). Transforming the cur-riculum through the intergenerational lens. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 1(2), 127-137.

Kaplan, M., & Larkin, E. (2004). Launching intergenera-tional programs in early childhood settings: A compari-son of explicit intervention with an emergent approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 157-163.

Kemp, C. (2007). Grandparent-grandchild ties: Reflections on continuity and changes across three generations. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855-881.

Kovacs, P. J., & Lee, J. (2010). Developing a community-university partnership for intergenerational pro-gramming: Relationship building is key. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8(4), 406-411. doi:10.1080/15350770.2010.521076

Kuehne, V. (2003a). The state of our art: Intergenerational program research and evaluation: Part one. Journal of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16

May/June 2016 / 225

Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 145-161. doi:10.1300/J194v01n01_12

Kuehne, V. (2003b). The state of our art: Intergenerational program research and evaluation: Part two. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(2), 79-94. doi:10.1300/J194v01n02_07

Laney, J., Wimsatt, T., Moseley, P., & Laney, J. L. (1999). Children’s ideas about aging before and after an inte-grated unit of instruction. Educational Gerontology, 25(6), 531-547. doi:10.1080/036012799267602

Larkin, E. (2002). Intergenerational solidarity: Strengthening economic and social ties. New York, NY: United Nations Headquarters: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Social Policy and Development. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/uny-in/documents/egm_unhq_oct07_lowenstein.pdf

Laughlin, L. (2013). Who is minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Current Population Reports, P70-135. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Lee, M., Camp, C., & Malone, M. (2007). Effects of inter-generational Montessori-based activities programming on engagement of nursing home residents with demen-tia. Journal of Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(3), 477-483. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685273/

Lichter, D. (2013). Integration or fragmentation? Racial diversity and the american future. Demography, 50(2), 359-391. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0197-1

Lillard, A. (2005). Montessori education and its scientific basis. Applied Developmental Pscyhology, 2, 183-187. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=famconfacpub

Lynott, P., & Merola, P. (2007). Improving the attitudes of 4th graders toward older people through a multi-dimensional intergenerational program. Educational Gerontology, 33(1), 63-74. doi:10.1080/03601270600864041

Mbugua, T., Wadas, J., Casey, M. A., & Finnerty, J. (2004). Authentic learning. Intercultural, international, and intergenerational experiences in elementary classrooms. Childhood Education, 80(5), 237-244. doi:10.1080/00094056.2004.10522806

McCrea, J., & Smith, T. (1997). Social issues addressed by intergenerational programs. In S. Newman, C. Ward, T. Smith, J. Wilson, & J. McCrea (Eds.), Intergenerational pro-grams: Past, present, and future (pp. 37-51). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Middlecamp, M., & Gross, D. (2002). Intergenerational daycare and preschoolers’ attitudes about ag-ing. Educational Gerontology, 28(4), 271-288. doi:10.1080/036012702753590398

Mitchell, W. (2007). Research review: The role of grand-parents in intergenerational support for families with disabled children: A review of the literature. Child & Family Social Work, 12(1), 94-101. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00421.x

Moen, P., Elder, G., & Lüscher, K. (1995). Examining lives in context. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Newman, S. (1997). History and evolution of intergenera-tional programs. In S. Newman, C. Ward, T. Smith, J. Wilson, & J. McCrea (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Past, present, and future (pp. 55-79). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Newman, S., Ward, C., Smith, T., Wilson, J., & McCrea, J. (1997). Intergenerational programs: Past, present, and fu-ture. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Rosebrook, V., & Larkin, E. (2002). Introducing standards and guidelines: A rationale for defining the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of intergenerational practice. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 133-144.

Salari, S. (2002). Intergenerational partnerships in adult day centers: Importance of age-appropriate environ-ments and behaviors. The Gerontologist, 42(3), 321. doi:10.1093/geront/42.3.321

Short-DeGraff, M., & Diamond, K. (1996). Intergenerational program effects on social responses of elderly adult day care members. Educational Gerontology, 22(5), 467.

St. Ann Center for Intergenerational Care. (2011). Childcare parent handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.stanncenter.org/Child%20Day%20Care

Statham, E. (2009). Promoting intergenerational pro-grammes: Where is the evidence to inform policy and practice? Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(4), 471-488.

Taylor, A., & Bressler, J. (2000). Mentoring across genera-tions: Partnerships for positive youth development. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

University of Pittsburgh. (2013). Intergenerational Learning & Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.aghe.org/Intergenerational

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census summary file 1. Re-trieved from www.census.gov

Ward, C. (1997). The context of intergenerational pro-grams. In S. Newman, C. Ward, T. Smith, J. Wilson, & J. McCrea (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Past, pres-ent, and future (pp. 21-35). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Wisensale, S. (2003). Global aging and intergenerational equity. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 29-47.

Xie, B., Druin, A., Fails, J., Massey, S., Golub, E., Franckel, S., & Schneider, K. (2012). Connecting generations: Developing co-design methods for older adults and children. Behavior and Information Technology, 31(4), 413-423. doi:10.1080/01449291003793793

Yoshida, H., & Henkin, N. (2012). Growing older in a new land: Understanding healthy aging and intergenerational re-lationships in immigrant and refugee families. Philadelphia, PA: Intergenerational Center, Temple University. •

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

one

DeV

ore]

at 0

9:28

29

Apr

il 20

16