PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design:
Learning Online with Older Adults
KATERINA CERNA, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
CLAUDIA MÜLLER, University of Siegen, Germany
DAVE RANDALL, University of Siegen, Germany
MARTIN HUNKER, University of Siegen, Germany
An extensive literature on participatory design with older adults has, thus far, little to say about the support
older adults need when involved in online activities. Our research suggests that to empower older adults in
participatory design, scaffolding work has to be done. Scaffolding interactions - creating temporary
instructional support to help the learning of participants - is a common approach in participatory design. Yet,
when applied in online participatory design with older adults, the traditional understanding of the concept
does not match the way older adults’ learn. Hence, we argue for a new understanding of this term, which we
call situated scaffolding. We illustrate our argument with a case where older adults collaborate online as part
of a participatory design project. We unpack the different dimensions of situated scaffolding and discuss how
this novel understanding can be used to further inform sustainable participatory design for and with older
adults.
CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing • Human-computer interaction (HCI) • Empirical
studies in HCI
KEYWORDS: Older adults, participatory design online, scaffolding, learning
ACM Reference format:
Katerina Cerna, Claudia Müller, Dave Randall, and Martin Hunker. 2022. Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable
Participatory Design: Learning Online with Older Adults. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 6, GROUP, Article 12 (January 2022), 25 pages, https://doi.org/10.1145/3492831
1 INTRODUCTION
The current demographic change (population growing older but also requiring more care), gives
rise to a range of challenges. Digitalization of the “aging society” aims to address these challenges,
leading to increasing digital complexity. However, these digital tools tend to assume homogeneity
of experience and do not address the individual needs and requirements of the older adults,
leading potentially to their exclusion from society [47]. A solution to this problem has started to
be tackled by emerging local and national efforts. For example, in Germany, local computer clubs
for older adults provide hands-on advice on how to solve problems connected to digital tools
appropriation and support older adults in learning to use their digital devices.
____________________________________________
This project was funded by JPI MYBL, which is supported by J-Age II. J-Age II is funded by Horizon2020, the EU Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation, under Grant Agreement nr 643850.
Author’s addresses: K.Cerna, Division of HCI, Department of Applied IT, University of Gothenburg, Förskningsvägen 6,
Gothenburg, 405 30, Sweden
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the
full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires
prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
2573-0142/2022/1 - Art12...$15.00
© Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3492831
12
12:2 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Further, nationwide activities such as classes in community colleges provide a range of structured
learning opportunities. However, there is a complicated trade-off between these services: the local
activities do not provide enough overview on the possible digital opportunities; and the national
services provide more general knowledge, without a strong link to individual practices.
In this context, participatory design (PD) can become a possible space, where older adults gain
necessary digital skills as well as more meaningfully contribute to the technology development.
Previous research has shown that participatory design can be a suitable approach to involving
older adults in the development of technology relevant to their needs, fostering mutual learning
and facilitating digital literacy [30]. Nevertheless, when participation is managed online, we find
some challenges exist, largely because digital literacy at an adequate level for collaborative
learning is not always in place. Some work is necessary to make participation in collaborative
projects online work, as the current design of digital tools makes progressive mutual learning
difficult to achieve. Our own work suggests that, at best, learning might be hindered or “slowed
down”; and adequate instructional support is hence required. However, as very few PD projects
with older adults have been actually conducted online, we know very little about how satisfactory
outcomes are to be achieved.
The gerontological pedagogy (often referred to as geragogic) literature argues that learning for
older adults is a distinct process and requires instructional support but as yet has said little about
how this takes place online. More specifically, in what follows, we draw on the idea of scaffolding
which is a concept that originally comes from teaching and learning for school children [51,52].
The principle is that, in the first instance, teachers must provide considerable input on a new topic
before students can begin to self- organize their learning, with the ultimate goal of becoming
independent learners. Scaffolding is especially useful when dealing with groups of very
heterogeneous learners [27]. We, therefore, draw on the notion of scaffolding. We suggest that
three major benefits emerged from such an approach. Firstly, the establishment of learning
resources in this way has long term effects, creating extended and sustainable support networks.
Secondly, a progressive move towards self-directed and peer supported learning is geared more
closely to the ordinary, everyday, practices of actors and has direct consequences for their
engagement in PD processes [44]. Thirdly, there is an evident need to build capacity in relation to
skills in a rapidly changing digital landscape.
Hence, the main research goal of our paper is to understand how to organize
participatory design workshops with older adults online. More specifically, the following research
question has guided our research:
● How instructional support develops when older adults and younger researchers collaborate
online in the context of participatory design?
By drawing on ethnographic informed methods with action-research orientation, we use the case
of older adults collaborating in participatory design online to develop a concept of situated
scaffolding for more sustainable designing of digital technology for and with older adults. This
paper, then, makes the following contributions:
● It provides a novel understanding of the scaffolding concept for the context of aging
society
● It provides empirical insights from older adults and researchers engaging in online
collaboration, dealing with the practical challenges and the necessary steps taken to make
the participation of everyone work.
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:3
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
● It makes design recommendations for the use of online collaboration tools with older
adults engaged in participatory design research.
The text is structured as follows: we first discuss current literature on older adults in PD, we
then provide relevant geragogical literature about instructional support and the older adults’
uptake of video conferencing tools, as well as present our conceptual framework based on
scaffolding literature. Second, we present our empirical setting, how we establish contact with
participants, and collect and analyzed our data. Next, we illustrate our findings focusing on the
development of the instructional support and challenges we encountered when collaborating
online. Finally, we discuss our findings in the context of the traditional understanding of
scaffolding concept as well as current PD literature with older adults. Finally, we provide
implications for sustainable PD online.
2 RELATED RESEARCH
In the following section we discuss current literature on PD with older adults and point out how it
mainly focuses on on-site collaborative activities. Next, we present geragogic literature to present
the common instructional support styles for older adults. Finally, we draw on learning science and
demonstrate how we understand the scaffolding concept. We finish with identifying a gap in the
current literature.
2.1 Participatory research with older adults in HCI
Among the substantial literature on participatory research and design for and with older adults we
find discourses on the concept of participation and reflections on supporting processes of working
with “less privileged participants” [28]. These form a foundation for the study at hand. The
existing literature provides a broad picture on how participatory projects are conceptualized and
being set up. Research work ranges from approaches which have a strong orientation to the
Scandinavian ideals of participatory design (i.e. focus on democratization, empowerment, and
transparency in IT design processes) on the one hand, to seeing participants as mere "data
suppliers" on the other hand [33,39,41]. The fact that power relations between scientists and
citizens in PD constellations are problematic has also been carefully examined [5,42]. Related to
this, a recent survey on PD with older adults suggests a stronger systematisation of PD work and
inspects the levels of engagement of older participants between the parties in different stages of a
design project [33]. Some researchers even question whether participation is meaningful at all and
recommendations point at the idea that working with older adults in early phases of IT design
would not lead to meaningful results because visualisation and the imagination of future
technology would be too demanding for persons with little or no experience with digital tools, and
that only in the latter stages of prototype testing would user involvement influence the outcomes
[9]. In contrast to this estimation, other HCI literature provides extensive discussion on concepts
and methods for including older adults in design processes, e.g interview methods, the usage of
tool kits, such as cultural probes [22], and workshops [30]. In any event, with older adults, we face
a highly diverse and heterogeneous societal group in respect of lifestyles, socio-economic,
educational, and health-related backgrounds, and other contextual factors [44]. However, for large
proportions of the 65+ generation, studies point to not only a “first-level digital divide” with
regard to low levels of internet adoption, limited access, and overall use but also a “second-level
digital divide” in relation to low internet skills and literacy as further differences between
generational groups [13].
12:4 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Some PD studies take this differentiation into account with the development of concepts and
methods that help tailor PD activities to the specific needs of older adults. Approaches suggested
include organizing workshops as “tea parties” or with social elements that provide levels of
comfort and informality [48]; concepts that foster empowerment and learning and skill transfer in
the course of a PD project [20]; concepts of dividing groups to adapt to the heterogeneity of the
participants’ digital skills [38] as well as developing frameworks for sustainable outcomes from
joint decision-making processes [34]. “Enabling for design” in the context of a PD project is
another focus found in the literature encompassing two major goals: digital capacity building in
participants so that they can become knowledgeable co-designers in the longer run, but also
support for “identity building” so that marginalized groups are enabled to start have a voice in
articulating their needs and desires [28,37].
2.2 Instructional support for learning of older adults
Geragogy and gerontology build on the assumption that older adults have specific learning needs.
These needs are not solely determined by the changes connected to aging, but rather by the
different socio-economical and technological background the older learners have [44]. Thus,
adequate instructional support is the key in fostering the process of older adults learning to use
digital tools. Historically, a teacher-centered approach with older adults was used, building on
providing the older adults with direct step-by-step instructions and summaries of action. Recent
studies critique sustainability of this approach and recommend a more learner-oriented approach,
which builds on the learners’ specific needs and interests especially when used over a longer
period of time [53]. However, that remains a challenging task, because the learners lack not only
digital literacy but also an overview of what is possible to know and do with digital devices [23].
Some studies report combining frontal teaching and hands-on advice to address the different
needs of older adults, for example in a project where young students supported older adults in
their use of smartphones [6]. Another approach involves building on peer to peer support, which
seems to be especially suitable as it can lead to decreasing anxiety and fear from using computers,
due to shared experience and background [43]. Such initiatives are often difficult to sustain over
time, as they lack resources. Some projects’ efforts are sustained through re-use of originally
developed physical materials, such as printouts, which can be used to support the learners [40].
Especially during the latest developments connected to COVID-19, many local NGOs and even
national networks moved online. Because of that one of the common tools to support
collaboration online became video conferencing tools [35]. Research on video conference tools and
how these are being appropriated by older adults are another area scarcely tackled in the research
literature and are mainly located in residential care contexts. Studies show that the opportunity to
stay in contact with family members via videoconference tools may provide benefits in reducing
loneliness and social isolation and increasing enjoyment and closeness [11,45]. At the same time, a
number of challenges are being discussed which emerged with videoconference tool usage, such
as technical issues (unstable internet connections), physical limitations (vision and hearing
deficits), as well as unfamiliarity with the technology use and related privacy concerns [36].
Further, according to [45] low levels of self-efficacy lead to further hindrances in the uptake of this
technology when the users felt that they were too old to use the technology. Additionally, it is
reported that massive support by the staff was needed, which may prove another hindrance when
facing their actual workload [36].
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:5
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
2.3 Conceptual framework
The main goal of our paper is to understand how to organize participatory design workshops with
older adults online, with a more specific focus on how instructional support develops when older
adults and younger researchers collaborate online in the context of participatory design. Our
interest in scaffolding has to do with our recognition, based on the experiences we report on
below, that participation in online contexts, for older adults, can be problematic. Scaffolding (or
sometimes also called instructional scaffolding) is a concept that has been explored within the
learning sciences [4]. It has also been addressed in communities focusing on design (for example
[24,31,37]. Our understanding of scaffolding builds on a combination of the above mentioned
fields. We understand scaffolding as creating a temporary instructional structure aiming to
support a learner in accomplishing a task; this structure is designed to be gradually taken away.
Practically, scaffolding can involve a range of different methods and strategies, such as creating
resources, modeling tasks, templates, and guides, and/or providing guidance. There are different
types of scaffolding, such as hard (planned) and soft (not planned) scaffolding [21]. One approach
that has proven influential derives from activity theory and specifically from Vygotsky’s notion of
the zone of proximal development (ZDP). Vygotsky developed this concept to understand the
learning potential of a child and the efforts of those who are supporting it:
“[ZDP] is the distance between the actual development level [of a child] as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers. ([49] p.86)“
In other words, tasks that learners are capable of doing are not predetermined, but dependent
on the appropriate support provided. This appropriate support then needs to be delivered through
collaboration with a peer who is more experienced in the particular task or an instructor. In the
development of the ZDP, tools play a crucial role as they have a mediating function in the social
interaction [49], and hence which tools are used will play an essential role in how to create and
deliver the particular scaffolding [46]. Building further on these ideas, a range of scholars have
focused on what the appropriate support could mean - in other words, how to structure the ZDP
so that the learner can progress to the goal capability. One of the key steps is identification of the
learners’ needs; hence, scaffolding is suitable to be used especially in groups involving
heterogeneous learners [27]. Next, the problems need to be continuously identified and
understood [24]. Finally, though not covered by Vygotsky, the temporality of such support is key
in developing scaffolding. Scaffolding is then appropriate instructional support provided to the
learner by an expert (a more knowledgeable person or a peer in a collaboration), designed in a
way that it should be gradually taken away.
Scaffolding is hence a useful concept to use to understand supporting learning in PD, as it
often consists of participants with very heterogeneous skills and different needs. Scaffolding as a
concept is dynamic as it depends on its implementation, the scope of the task, and the learners’
ZDP [32]. Hence, when applying this concept in the aging society, we argue that there is a need to
develop a more nuanced understanding of the role of scaffolding.
2.4 Identifying the gap in current research
To sum up, recent studies based on participatory design approaches with and for older adults
demonstrate the need for careful planning and deployment of the co-production process if
sustained and productive engagement is to result [20,22,30,37,38,48]. Thus, moderation of the
12:6 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
process and the support of negotiation of different expectations, different levels of skills and
interests as well as exit strategies need to be recognized early on [2,34]. Nevertheless, detailed
consideration of how exactly such ambitions might be realized in the context of online
participation has yet to be examined. Further, current literature on learning of older adults
suggests that instructional support is key when using digital tools [6,40,43,44,53]. This literature
builds on supporting older adults’ learning in person, by heavily drawing on the physical
resources at hand (pointing with hands, looking at the same screen, printouts, non-verbal
communication). Literature on video-conferencing tools has shown a potential to benefit older
adults [11,36,45]; however this literature also suggests that older adults would require sufficient
instructional support in the use of the video-conferencing tools. Our paper addresses this gap, by
drawing on the conceptual framework of scaffolding and unpacks what instructional support is
necessary for older adults to be enabled to take an active part and contribute to a participatory
design online.
3 EMPIRICAL SETTING AND METHOD
The ethnographic informed methods [3] allowed for using the on-site workshops as well as the
online activities as environments for learning about the older research participants' interests,
practices, and routines. The action research orientation [17] made us conceptualize the joint
activities as sources of mutual learning as well as practicing interventions in relation to the PD
project. In this section, we will first describe the empirical context of our data that this study took
place within, how we recruited participants, and who they were and then we will proceed to
describe which data this study draws on.
3.1 Empirical context
The research reported in this paper is part of a European project aimed at supporting
appropriation and understanding of the learning conditions pertaining to the use of digital tools
by older adults. The broader focus of our subproject is on participatory design work with that
demographic in pursuit of developing digital literacy as a means to reach higher autonomy in
digital tool use. In this paper, we present findings from a study that is part of our subproject
project aiming to understand how to organize participatory design with older adults’ workshops
online. More specifically, the following research question has guided our research: How
instructional support develops when older adults and younger researchers collaborate online in
the context of participatory design?
The participants’ recruitment took place in line with our socio-technical and long-term
research approach. Our research group maintains long-term relationships with both private
households and organizations in the city through a series of collaborative research projects, of
which this is the most recent. One such relationship is with a group of older adults living in the
same neighborhood (Group A). Participants from Group A were informed about the upcoming
research project during a social dinner (which was a closing event to the previous project) and
later recruited through a Telegram chat, which was established during a previous research project
and which the participants were using the past three years. A second group (Group B) had been
recruited by contacting a local volunteer initiative consisting of a group of older adults who, in
collaboration with the municipality, run a volunteer internet café (in this study labeled with the
pseudonym Atlas@space), where local older people can come and get help with their digital
devices three times a week. We invited our Group A participants in person during the
introductory event; the instructors were familiar with the research group and have worked with
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:7
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
our department before. There are 10 instructors in all, all retired, of whom two had previously
joined in prior projects and who can be relied on to distribute the invitations to our PD projects
among their visitors. One of the instructors also engages in skill training offered by regional and
national senior didactic programs. Two of these instructors joined our project.
The timeline of our research efforts was heavily impacted by the restrictions connected
to COVID-19. Our empirical activities took place in the following manner (for an overview of the
timeline of our empirical activities see Figure 1). We started with an introduction event in January
2020 of our research at Atlas@space as well as we started to conduct weekly participatory
observations at the same place. Our workshops started taking place in February 2020 and are still
ongoing, however in this paper we chose to report from the first 29 workshops (February 2020 May
2021). As our work had digital literacy for older adults as its central motivation the original
goal was hence to organize a series of on-site workshops, during which we would introduce a
range of digital devices (for example smartwatches or voice assistants) for older adults to explore
and test out at home. We have managed to organize two respective three workshops with each
group, during which we introduced more in detail our project goals, fostered getting to know each
other in the groups, established Telegram as our main coordinating tool as well as distributed new
devices. However, at the beginning of March, we had to interrupt all our onsite activities because
of the gradually imposed restrictions connected to COVID-19.
Figure 1: Timeline of the research work
In the following section, we reflect on the impact of the planned activities and how they had to
change. Originally, the goal of the subproject was to develop a mobile demokit, a tangible artifact
that would consist of digital artifacts guidelines co-created together with the older adults and the
digital artifacts. Because of the COVID-19 consequences (working online and not preferring
shared tangible objects, which could contribute to the spread of the virus), we have changed the
goal of the project and instead of a tangible object, we started developing a website, where we
present the results of our work, both made by the researchers, in co-creative collaboration with
the older adults and by the older adults.
The following measures were taken to redesign our planned workshops. First, we made a
decision together with our participants to move our workshops online. We discussed this decision
in our Telegram chats with the participants. Second, we tested various tools with the participants,
12:8 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
including Jitsi, Skype, and Zoom. Third, through our experience, we gradually explored new ways
to enable the older participants to take part in the online sessions. The majority of our participants
knew little or nothing about video-conferencing tools but were motivated to participate in the
workshops we had organized. This meant that a learning process had to be undertaken, one in
which researchers needed to identify how best to provide the necessary support, and participants
had to learn how to use the tools. Zoom in the end became our default option largely because of
bandwidth quality and the additional features it offered, such as breakout rooms. As we
discovered, our problem turned out to be not so much the management of interactional features of
the sessions but quite simply enabling older participants to access the Zoom environment in the
first place. It was necessary to manage instructions step-by-step, despite the fact that we had
prepared and shared screenshots and written instructions through Telegram manual-like
resources. Even with this careful guidance, the task turned out to be highly complex in some cases
and we had to provide a very tailored form of scaffolding which consisted at different times of
using devices with much lower overhead, such as texting through the common Telegram group or
making individual phone calls.
Fourth, we have adapted our activities to the online mode. We have included the
following types of activities:
a) Ice-breaker activities (simple tasks, which did not require high digital literacy);
b) Discussions (focused on specific themes, such as life during COVID-19 pandemic or also
privacy online; later often taking place in breakout rooms). We know that many older adults are
motivated by social interaction, hence we always tried including space for the older participants to
share with each other.
c) Task to learn (a specific task to learn, that was the goal of the session, for example,
explore an online tool together, test out different functions of Zoom etc., later often taking place in
breakout rooms);
d) Reflection (taking place in a group and often at the end of each workshop).
Finally, we have also changed the way we planned the sessions by developing detailed
step-by-step sequences of the planned activities; but at the same time, we had to be flexible and
ready to change the order of the activities depending on the number of the participants as well as
their digital literacy.
Two key aspects of video-conferencing environments impacted our online activities: that
Zoom is a one-to-many communication channel (even though the whole group is present, only
one person can, in principle, speak at a time) and that participants do not share the same physical
space. Various studies have demonstrated that this can be a rather more challenging affair online
(see e.g. [12]). Firstly, although relevance is clearly visible in relation to the way in which
(typically) two persons seek to resolve a problem, the other members of the online group are
reduced to the status of bystanders. Secondly, and this speaks to the relationship between the
online and the offline world, what individuals are ‘up to’ when they attempt to deal with problems
of various kinds, such as logging in, are not directly visible to other participants. Put simply,
online spaces can be, at the same time, physical spaces, the latter not being equally available to all
participants. In this respect, certain kinds of problem resolution become more problematic in the
online environment. These elements were brought into sharp contrast by the fact that we had
previous experience with the same group in working together in a shared physical site. When
collaborating on-site, it was possible to address the emerging issues with learning to work with
digital tools in a one-on-one manner, even though the approaches of older participants to their use
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:9
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
of technology sometimes varied. Sitting beside each other and pointing (with a finger) to specific
parts of the phone or of the app were regular practices, in keeping with much of what we know
about the relationship between gesture and talk (see e.g. [15,19]). Thus, the joint engagement
between a person and a researcher around a device was always an important part of the on-site
workshop, with embodied interactions being a critical feature (asking, listening, seeing, deictic
practices (pointing “first click here, then here...”). Online interaction was more difficult. For some,
immediate problems of technology use were the relevant matter, and largely dyadic interactions
between researchers and older adults were the resource for resolution attempts. For others, the
group existed to discuss general issues relating to the digital practices of older adults with a design
agenda in mind. Hence it was challenging to keep on holding the online workshops while
developing sufficient instructional support - as we will discuss below.
Altogether, we worked with 21 older adults who were between 65 and 80 years old. Group A
included 11 participants (7 women and 4 men), group B included 10 participants (7 women and 3
men). Despite that, the number of men and women was not the same, as with increasing age also
the amount of women increases [16], we did not consider this aspect of the group as something
that would disturb our conclusions. The group was very heterogeneous when it came to their
digital literacy (ranging from complete beginners to relative experts). They had different
motivations for joining our project (staying up to date, teaching digital literacy to other older
peers, enjoying collaboration with the university, and being in touch with younger people). Some
had prior familiarity with university-run participatory projects (ranging from complete beginners
to experience with collaboration over several years). All owned at least a smartphone and a tablet
or a laptop.
The research team that organized the participatory workshops consisted of a junior and senior
researcher (first and second author) and a group of four students who were employed to support
the workshops. The junior researcher (first author) led the design of the different workshops
(structure and content), and took part in each of them, during which she coordinated the different
activities (pacing the group activity, making sure no older participant is being excluded, etc.). She
also took notes during the sessions. The senior researcher (second author) has provided guidance
for the workshops as well as played a key role when introducing the junior researcher into the
field, as she was already familiar with some of the participants and the Atlas@space. Students had
different roles during the workshops: moderator (a person who was guiding the participants
through the session, explaining tasks); technical support (sometimes it was necessary to have one
or two people to be able to get the older participants online by individually checking in on them,
by either a Telegram message or a phone call, providing individually fitted support on how to for
example join the Zoom room). Finally, one of the students often took field notes (if he or she was
not supporting the older adults). The students were already familiar with some of the participants
of Group B, which contributed to a relaxed and informal atmosphere (fourth author). All
workshop sessions involved the above mix of people, that is older participants, local computer
club instructors, and researchers.
3.2 Methodological approach
Our understanding of the problem of collaboration online with older adults builds on data
collected during 20 hours of participatory observations in the local computer club, 29 workshops,
and numerous Telegram conversations. Initial observations took place in the local computer club,
where we were able to observe the motivations that people expressed for visiting the club and
how counseling and problem solving were being provided by the instructors. During these
observations, we also helped troubleshoot some of the problems the older adults had with their
12:10 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
devices. We subsequently organized three workshops with Group A and two workshops with
Group B at the university. During these workshops onsite (in person), we collected field notes and
made several video and audio recordings of the activities, which were transcribed. At this point,
we had to stop due to COVID-19 and took the decision to move entirely online. Later, we merged
the two groups into one.
We recorded all the online workshops and documented them by field notes. So far, five
workshops on-site and 24 online with the older adults have been conducted starting March 2020.
The average duration of sessions is 111 minutes, and the average number of participants was
seven. The first online session was not recorded due to technical issues. We documented this
session with field notes, screenshots, and a short (90 seconds) video. In addition, we also
conducted seven interviews after the first session with Group B participants to better understand
their experience of the online workshop. These qualitative interviews were conducted in line with
interview guidelines that we have developed together with the research team. There were nine
questions that centered around the first online workshop, inquiring about the participants’
experience, which tools they used and preferred using, and which support they would prefer. In
addition, we made 10 phone calls with the older participants in which we tried to try to
understand their current COVID-19 related situation and which were also used as analytical
material (documented by either recordings or field notes). Finally, we also draw on a field journal
written during the activities, where the first author reflected how the workshops and the project
were progressing; as well as notes from debriefing and informal interviews with the project
organizers. All the older participants were informed about the goals of our project and have signed
informed consent forms. All the materials were anonymized and the names used in this paper are
pseudonyms.
We have analyzed our data by an approach informed by interaction analysis [25]. First,
we have reviewed the video materials, looking for moments where older adults or researchers
experienced challenges when using digital tools. We then transcribed these moments and re-read
the transcripts multiple times. Through an iterative process of reading the transcripts, reflecting
on our experience together with our team, and reading relevant literature, we have found that
providing instructional support is the key aspect when going online with older adults. We have
then focused on those examples which illustrated instructional support in a rich way and chose
the concept of scaffolding to explain the mechanism of these interactions.
Holding the sessions and also analyzing this kind of material was extremely demanding.
Video analysis has always been a demanding endeavor [18] for different reasons including the
wealth of material and the difficulties of coding it. In our case, this was compounded because of its
multi-modal character (combining audio and video from the workshops and text from the
Telegram sessions) but also due to the complexity of the socio-technical space. For example, when
people experience issues with the tool, they often stop talking, being focused on how to solve the
problem - but how and why they do that was not always apparent. Furthermore, Zoom allows
recording of the sessions but does not display all the information one might require for analysis.
We do not, for instance, see on the video recordings if participants are muted or not and we draw
our understanding from our field notes or the actual video (if we can hear them or not if
participants are commenting on that). Our approach to transcription of this material heavily
combined reviewing the field notes, reviewing the video materials from workshops multiple times,
focusing on sections where people experienced challenges, and then trying to make sense of those
moments together with the Telegram data.
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:11
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
The first workshops were instructionally the most intensive ones. With every session,
practices were becoming easier and during the third and fourth session online (Group A and
Group B respectively) the majority of participants were able to join us online. However, that did
not mean that all the challenges were overcome. In the following section, we present examples
that illustrate some of the most common issues which emerged and re-emerged during the course
of these workshops. These challenges occurred repeatedly over the whole corpus of data. We
focus below on how the challenges unfold interactionally, and how the session participants (both
researchers and older participants) dealt with these challenges and tried to resolve them.
4 MUTUAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT WITH OLDER ADULTS IN ONLINE PD
In the following section, we describe the specific facets of instructional support for and with older
adults in online PD. We start by demonstrating how problems become identified in the PD
context; next, we show how such support is developed through participants mutually interacting
with each other; and finally, we show what happens when such instructional support is taken
away and how it might have to be brought back.
4.1 Identifying invisible problems
A common first phase of instructional support is traditionally called diagnosis [24], which refers to
the importance of understanding the problem at hand. However, in online PD with older adults,
this becomes an issue of not only understanding what the problem is but being able to identify
that there is a problem in the first place. In the online environment, this is not a simple task as
older participants do not always voice their problems and because of lack of shared physical space,
it is not possible to simply see that they are struggling with tasks.
One of the evident facts about online group meetings is that the shared audio space is
critically important. Struggles with conversations can be very consequential. For example, one of
the reasons why, in our case, the first sessions were very confusing was that participants kept on
talking over each other in this one-channel communication space (none of the participants were
able to use the Zoom chat at that point). In addition, outside sounds, such as dog barking or clock
ringing, also sometimes disrupted the session. While this may seem trivial, one should remember
that older adults are more likely to suffer from hearing difficulties which, allied to poor
bandwidth, makes for some interactional problems. Extraneous sounds, such as the loud clock that
one older participant had, made it difficult to hear anything both for the researchers and for the
older participants. Remembering the ‘mute;’ and ‘unmute’ buttons can be a little challenging even
for habitual users of Zoom, and such issues are magnified given the lack of navigational
competence, especially when several different devices might be in play. The following example
illustrates some of the troubles arising in this situation.
Moderator Timo starts instructing older participants on how to turn off the microphone:
“Move your cursor into the left corner and click on the microphone”. Everyone seems to focus on
the task, however, Isabella’s face looks extremely confused which is something that the moderator
does not seem to notice - there are seven older adults who are taking part at that time in the
session - but she or anyone else does not say anything. The moderator hence goes on. After a
while, we can hear barking from Isabella’s place. The leader of the computer club Anabell, who is
also in this workshop, starts explaining to her how she can mute herself and the following
exchange takes place.
12:12 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Excerpt 1. Isabella struggles with finding the right button
Anabell: Isabella, if you look down to mute. then we won’t hear the dog
anymore <laughs>
Isabella: I cannot find the button that is my problem
Anabell: You have to move the mouse down. And then mute is on the far
left.
Isabella: I am on my cell phone.
(Group A, session 5)
This was only the second workshop to take place online, and the older participants were
familiarizing themselves with the Zoom interface. In this excerpt, the moderator first explains
how to do a task (muting and unmuting the microphone). Isabella is not able to perform the task
but does not voice her struggles and hence her issue does not become apparent until a dog barks
in her location. After a peer/instructor tries providing her with support, it only then turns out that
the provided instructions were not relevant because Isabela joined from a mobile device (in
contrast to instructions provided with a laptop in mind).
This example illustrates an initial move in providing adequate instructional support in the
online environment to the older participants - identifying that there is a problem in the first place.
That Isabella actually was not able to resolve her issue did not become obvious until her dog
started barking. In a group with eight other adults, this was very “easy” to miss, as there were no
other signs of her not managing. During our online sessions, it was quite common for the older
adults not to voice their problems and we hence lost track of whether they might need support in
the first place. Second, it illustrates the challenge of providing adequate support when older adults
engage with a variety of digital ecologies, as it is not always possible to know which is being used
to join the session [8]. That also makes it challenging to provide them with adequate support in
relation to how to navigate in the app, for example, by providing them with instructions on which
button to click. It also suggests that even peer-to-peer support which is often presented as a
suitable teaching method for older adults in this environment does not always work - in this case,
none of the participants (both researchers and expert older adults) understood what kind of
problem Isabella was struggling with.
4.2 Building upon each other’s descriptions
We now show through examples how actual instructional support is developed; more specifically,
how a participant can struggle with a task they are supposed to do and how a moderator can
provide them with instructions on how to overcome the task. Moreover, we show how success or
failure depends very much on the choice of the strategy chosen by the moderator. Autonomy on
the part of older adults in their use of digital tools was an explicit project goal, and hence a topic
for one of the workshops was how to create their own Zoom room. To do that, we had to go
through the process of navigating the registration processes of older adults ( it is not necessary to
register in Zoom in order to participate in an online session, but it is necessary for the creation of
a room). In the example which follows, moderator Tim has just finished a presentation on how to
proceed when registering in Zoom on a laptop. This is a necessary step - to first show the
participants the whole process does, in our experience, improve understanding of the more
specific steps [6].
Even though by this time we knew that older adults join with different devices, we also
recognized the impossibility of providing instructions for all the different devices during one
session. Hence our instructional approach was based on our assumptions about the commonly
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:13
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
used devices and accessibility for the moderators, and then to provide further individual support
on how to deal with particular devices. Thus, we would gradually fit the instructions to individual
needs. The degree to which such an approach can fail or succeed will be illustrated in the
following example. After his walkthrough, Tim checked whether anyone had any questions and
participant Mariane explained that none of this would work for her because she was on her iPad;
she also expressed the view that she had no idea how to do any of these things. Because Tim did
not have an iPad at hand and was not sure what exactly Marianne saw, he decided to ask her to
share her screen which is a possible function on iPads. This is a task that was new for Marianne,
and he hence needed to provide her with suitable support in doing so. The following interaction
then took place. Tim and Filip are the moderators, Marianne is an older participant.
Excerpt 2. Mariane tries sharing her screen
Tim: Can you share your screen with us?
Mariane: No, I don't know how to do that.
Tim: Look, on the bottom, I don't know now if that's exactly the same view
on the tablet. But at the bottom there are these symbols again, if you
swipe your finger over them like this, they should come up.
Mariane: There are no icons at the bottom, there are only icons at the
top.
Filip: They should be at the top of the bar, there should be a green box
with an arrow pointing up.
Mariane: Yes, share content (moves her finger across the display of the
Ipad)
Tim: Right.
Mariane: Yeah, now I have, now, what do you want me to share? Screen?
Tim: When you go to share screen, what options are there for you to choose
from?
Mariane: I just have a simple screen and then screen capture, photos,
zoom, messenger, start recording. That's when I open up the screen,
nothing else.
Tim: Hmm then it says up there. Basic and expand.
Mariane: No under screen, then it says photos, icloud, web pages,
bookmarks whiteboard. It says...
Tim: Then just go to share screen.
Mariane: Screen (taps on display)... Wait, it said share earlier, I didn't
do that now either.... It says share content now. Then I go to the screen
and then nothing comes up with share....
Tim: hmm, okay
In this example, for Tim to be able to provide Mariane with suitable instructions, he needs to
first direct Mariane’s field of vision to a particular spot on the device; even though he does not
provide her with correct instructions (he points to the bottom, but the buttons are at the top), with
the support of another moderator Philip, Marianne manages to find her way to the right place.
The conversation further develops through Marianne eliciting further feedback from Tim and Tim
trying to navigate her accordingly by instructing her to read out loud what she sees. However, as
this effort does not seem to be successful, Mariane starts giving up, stating that “Doesn't
matter, I just... then it doesn't work, I wouldn't create a zoom account
anyway.” And “I listened now and wrote down a little bit. If that then
really comes into question, then I would then do that again with my son”.
However, Tim is not ready to give up yet and thinks of another solution - involving another
device that Marianne owns - her smartphone. We know from our observations that older adults
12:14 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
usually have multiple devices which they use in different combinations, using different individual
strategies to join our online sessions. Mariane’s approach always involves both her smartphone
with which she starts and her iPad as well (meaning she always joins with two devices). At this
point, Tim realizes he can actually use this situation for the purpose of the session:
Excerpt 3. Tim uses Mariane’s digital ecology to support her
Tim: You were still in there with the cell phone just now, right.
Mariane: Yeah, I turned it off because it always makes these weird noises
about.....
Tim: Then turn that back on.
Mariane: Yeah. And then on zoom, or on what.
Tim: Well, open up the zoom app.
Mariane: Yeah, start a meeting?
Tim: Can you show me the screen so we can see that?
Mariane: Like this? Can you see that? [she points her screen to her
camera]
Tim: No, a little further to the left... higher [Marianne doesn't know
where the camera is on the Ipad.] . A little closer.... (You can see the
phone now) So that's with you when you click on the zoom app, right? Then
this view comes up?
Mariane: Yes
Tim: Okay. Then click on a meeting.... Wait, what does it say... Log in
Mariane: I don't know, I can't see that.
Tim: Can you hold it a little higher?
Mariane: I'll hold this to you.
Tim: A little higher, please. Log in and register it says. Okay, then
click on register.
Mariane: [clicks on register] Then October ninth comes to confirm.
Tim: Yes, then confirm.
To summarize, Tim first instructs Mariane to turn her attention to her second device that she
also joined with, her smartphone. She opens the Zoom application, and then instead of eliciting a
verbal description as before, Tim asks Mariane to actually show her smartphone screen on the
tablet. After some smaller adjustments she manages and he can instruct her further. As she cannot
read what it says on the screen (the letters seem to be too small), Tim can read out loud what the
screen says and asks Mariane to click on the particular button (Register). She does so and they
return to the previous approach, talking out loud about what she sees on the screen. She starts
filling in the necessary categories for her Zoom account and proceeds to successfully login into
her Zoom.
These examples illustrate how verbal instructional support is used to help the older
participants when trying to complete tasks (here: sharing a screen from an iPad; Registering for a
Zoom account). Because of the lack of the shared space, the moderator cannot simply start
providing Mariane with the fitting instructions based on what he sees on her screen. He first has
to figure out how to understand what Mariane actually sees on her screen. The first strategy
involves prompting the older adult to read out loud, or walkthrough, what they see on the screen.
The way the moderator provides instructions to the older participant has a double function. On
one hand, they help her to accomplish her task but in addition, they also show her an approach,
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:15
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
how to deal with Zoom (and possibly other digital tools), when not sure what to do: explore first
what all the options are and then choose which one seems to be the most fitting one.
However, in this case, this strategy is not enough - even though Mariane has the support of
Tim, she cannot proceed further, because the application does not seem to react. This is a situation
we have also commonly experienced in our workshops - even though the older participants are
perfectly capable of describing the textual information they see on their screens (such as the
various options, as Mariane does); they sometimes find it more difficult to place it in the right
context (for example based on the information available, it is still impossible to determine
whether they are in the same application as we think they are) or choosing the right activity (for
example, because they have limited shared vocabulary, they might say “I am clicking on the link”,
even though they might be clicking on some other element). Or as it seems to be the case in the
case of Mariane, because, for some reason unclear to us, the button does not function (and does
not actually start the sharing of her screen).
As a consequence - it is possible to have the older adults read out what they see; but to actually
understand how to help them to do the task is not always possible based on their description - the
sentence “I press the button but nothing happens” represents a problem we have
seen quite often in our data/we have experienced quite often. For that reason, Tim decides to
change his instructional approach and draws on Mariane’s diverse digital ecology to help her
solve the task. Instead of instructing her how to use Zoom, he first needs to instruct her how to
use another tool to fix her first problem (in this case, her smartphone).
4.3 When collaborative socio-material resources are not enough
Traditionally, with scaffolding or instructional support, it is usually expected that it will be
gradually taken away, often also called fading so as to facilitate a progressive move towards selflearning
[46,51]. However, the following examples from our work illustrate how fading in the case
of older adults in online PD is not a straightforward process. Right from the beginning of our
workshops, the researcher team has developed a range of different instructional resources, both
during the workshop and outside it. To begin with, we provided our older adults with a range of
different materials: an instructional video on how to use Zoom, a PDF with instructions on how to
use Zoom, and a Telegram message including coordinating information about the meeting, such as
time and the link to the online meeting. As our older participants started to become more skilled
in joining the online sessions and their joining started to take less and less time, we gradually took
away the detailed written instructions, and only shared the video and the message. Finally, once
joining the session became smoother (and took around 5 minutes with no major issues
manifested), we stopped sharing the video completely and only shared the message with
coordinating information. However, during a workshop in May 2020 our older participants asked
that we include more instructions concerning how they should, for example, click on the link
provided in the Telegram message; or highlight that we are still meeting online (one of the
participants interpreted the fact that we had not explicitly stated that the meeting would be online
to mean it would be face-to-face and came to the university in person).
The biggest challenge however came in the relation to the verbal instructional support and the
characteristics of online PD with older adults. Some of the participants take part less often than
others; which makes it demanding to hold the sessions, as their competence regarding our Zoom
workshop varies. This is a situation that has to be tackled during every specific workshop and
cannot be planned for. As a consequence, we have to balance the need for enabling the
12:16 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
participation of every participant but at the same time continuing to progress the workshops with
regard to our primary goals, and to avoid boring the more advanced participants. The following
situation took place during a workshop in May 2020. Every older participant except Rebecca has
joined us on a regular basis for the majority of our workshops. Rebecca did join us during all the
physical workshops (two) and was also a regular visitor of the local senior computer club. She also
sometimes joined other online activities through Atlas@space, as we will see below. As mentioned
above, sometimes it takes a while to identify that there is a problem in the first place: here, we did
not know that Rebecca was trying to join our online session, as we did not get any messages or
phone calls from her. As moderator Marvin has been doing a welcoming round to the last
workshop of that phase, the following interaction took place. (Marvin: moderator; Pietro:
participant online; Annabell and Wolfgang: instructors participating online).
Excerpt 4. Rebeca unsuccessfully trying to join the group online
Marvin: ... or you don't want to do one, that's up to you. Is there
anything else you want to know?
Pietro: Not at the moment.
Marvin: Okay, but otherwise
Pietro: I see that at the moment Rebecca is here on her smartphone but
gets no connection to the workshop.
Marvin: Have you tried to connect her or what do you mean?
Pietro: Yes, I also wrote her that... She only has to click on the link,
but apparently it doesn't work for her.
Annabell: She probably has the Telegram only on her cell phone and not on
her computer.
Pietro: I can't find a link here, she just wrote it *laughs*.
Annabell: She didn't read the Name_group[name of the Telegram group] at
all, she's always rummaging around in her own stuff.
Marvin: Mhm
Annabell: I tried to help her, but she didn't answer her cell phone. You
can do nothing with that
Wolfgang: Yesterday she was there, yesterday she was in our meeting.
Annabell: Yes, but she dialed in directly via Zoom.
Wolfgang: Yes, she can do that
Annabell: And now via the link, she can't manage that.
Marvin: But she is already trying to join via her smartphone.
Pietro: I will write her here again.
Annabell: I, I don't think that she has Zoom on her smartphone.
Marvin: Mhm, exactly, that can be the problem, that the link, when she
clicks on the link, she is asked how she wants to open it and if she
doesn't have the Zoom App, then she can't open it.
Annabell: No no
Marvin: That's why
Annabell: But even if you open the link it looks completely different than
if you dial into Zoom directly.
Marvin: Yes that's right
In this example, the research team learned from Pietro that Rebecca, another older participant,
is trying to join the session however is not able to do so. Providing instructions in this situation
builds on a wide range of activities: Pietro is trying to instruct Rebecca through texting; Annabell
tries calling her on the phone (unsuccessfully), and the whole group is trying to make sense of
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:17
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
how to support Rebecca so that she can join us. Wolfgang even mentions that she took part in
another meeting hosted by the club, to which Annabell reacts that she must have “[dialed in]
directly via Zoom”. This statement points to the need for a Zoom ID. Interestingly, this is a
common method for several of our participants; but to be able to provide them with a Zoom ID
through email, we need to know that this is what the participant needs in the first place. Later
during the session, Rebecca suddenly arrived at Pietro’s home, as they are neighbors and friends
and he helped her in-person to join. During the next online meeting she joined, but during the one
after she again experienced troubles and did not make it.
This example points to two issues. First, following instructions is not a simple task. In the
situation described above, Rebecca received three types of instructional support: a message in
Telegram from the researchers, a message from her peer as well as in-person explanation from her
peer. The first two textual supports include the instruction “click on the link”. That we can also
hear the participant say is not strange, as this is a phrase that, especially at the beginning, we used
very often when prompting the older adults to join our online workshops, instructing them to
“only click on the link”. However, the problem of rules is that the rule (or instruction) does not tell
you how to follow the rule (or the instruction) (Wittgenstein). So to be able to follow the
instruction “click on the link”, you need to know what a link is, where to find it and what
“clicking” on it means. This might become confusing as many of the older participants joined with
their tablets and phones, and technically it is not possible to “click” but only to tap/touch the link.
In other words, only because you receive instructions it does not mean it will be automatically
possible to also follow them.
The second problem this example illustrates is the need to embed instructional support in a
manner that builds on the different constellations of social and material resources. As the example
shows, the leader of the club knows Rebecca and tries calling her, because she knows she might
have trouble joining the workshop because of the way we have built the instructions (clicking on
the link vs sharing an ID). Further, Pietro and Rebecca are friends, and hence even during the
times of COVID-19, it is not an issue for her to come to this house and elicit help, due to close
physical (and emotional) proximity. Despite that, the participants in the call (except Pietro) cannot
provide her with support, because she is not accessible (does not answer her phone, which makes
her “unreachable” in the digital space); and even though he can provide her support at that
moment, he cannot explain to her in a way that would allow her to join us on a regular basis.
Social networks are sometimes not enough or can be even “harmful” (as it was in the case of a
participant whose husband kept on “overriding” researchers’ instructions, making it difficult for
the participant to know what to do).
5 DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, no existing work has looked at the specific problems associated with
instruction in an online group of older adults nor, more specifically with the kind of problems
encountered and how one might begin to resolve them within the context of participatory design.
Thus, we provide empirical material that illustrates what instructional support is necessary for
older adults to be able to engage in PD online. First, older adults’ problems can be easily
overlooked by those supporting them in online environments, and a shared understanding of the
existence of the problem has to be developed before its solution can be identified (Excerpt 1).
12:18 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Table 1. Comparison of scaffolding definition and our empirical material
Aspect from definition by [24] Why does it not fit the empirical material?
(1) Intersubjectivity or creation of a
shared understanding of the activity is
achieved when the expert and the
learners are able to collaboratively
redefine the problem or task so that there
is combined ownership of the task and the
learner understands the goal that she
needs to accomplish. The expert’s role is
to ascertain that the learner is invested in
the task as well as to help sustain this
motivation.
Because of the distributed space, the understanding of the
participants’ problem depends on the way the instructions are
delivered, it is hard to create a shared understanding, like it was
in Excerpts 2 and 3. Further, in the classic understanding, shared
goals are a prerequisite. In our situation, developing a shared
understanding of shared goals is part of the overall situation.
The participants’ learning intentions or motivations are not clear
from the beginning, as they might not be aware of the possible
options; and we have to work on them together with the older
participant. As such, it is our task as PD researchers to set the
ground, to interest them in learning certain issues, to motivate
them. A lot of collaboration had to take place before we could
actually start learning from each other.
(2) Ongoing diagnosis is achieved
through the dialogic and interactive
nature of scaffolded instruction, which
requires careful calibration of support
provided to learners by experts using a
repertoire of methods and strategies. The
amount and types of strategies are
different not only for different learners
who are at different levels in their
learning, but also for the same learner
over a period of time;
This point is in line with our finding, as an ongoing
diagnosis through conversations is taking place throughout the
whole PD process. However, because of the group character in
combination with the way the online tool is designed, it becomes
problematic as it was difficult to not notice when someone is
failing with the task (Excerpt 1). Even when people voiced
having problems, it was not always possible to immediately
address it (as it would be on-site), but we had to “re-organize”
the communication around it, either make a phone call or let
them wait (Excerpt 2).
(3) Fading of support after
internalization has been achieved so that
the learner is in control and takes
responsibility for learning.
That fading of instructional support might never be taken
away has already been reported [37]. Fading of support does not
work for digital learners, because they will always be in need of
support, as the digital tools develop at a speed not in line with
the way they can learn. Excerpt 4 illustrates this when the
community is heterogeneous and even though we have all been
working on helping older adults joining zoom, it still did not
become possible for all of us to provide proper support so that
the older participant can join us.
(4) Distributed scaffolding refers to
instructional designs that integrate a
variety of social and material supports for
scaffolding, essentially supporting learning
by “doing‟. For instance, in science
education, engaging in scientific
conversation and dialogue is encouraged
rather than solely using a textbook or
encyclopedia.
This point is in line with our findings, however, the question
is, where are such spaces for older adults? There are some such
as the local computer clubs, but they have limited capacity and
resources. For older adults to learn through just testing, they
need to get comfortable and safe in the environment first.
In Excerpt 4, we could see that only “access” to sociomaterial
resources is not enough. The resources need to be
contextualized by suitable meta-instructions and digital and
physical spaces which could provide this are still missing.
(5) Adaptive scaffolding provides
calibrated support to learners through
multiple resources including static
questions and dynamic support that guide
students in their thinking
Older adults need more advanced support than “questions”;
the adaptiveness has to come not from a range of resources but
also how these are presented and made sense of together,
pointing to the need for meta-instruction and metacommunication,
the instructions need to be contextualized
(Excerpt 1 and 4).
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:19
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
Next, instructions cannot be simply “provided”, they have to be carefully crafted together in a
mutual and collaborative manner (Excerpt 2). And finally, having access to both social and digital
resources might still not be enough, and instructional support will have to be carefully managed
when it comes to learning how to use digital tools by older adults in such collaborative
environments (Excerpt 3).
Hence, our findings point to the need to change our understanding of scaffolding in the
context of online PD with older adults, as we will show in the table below (Table 1). Current
definitions of scaffolding do not fit the aging society and as such are unsuitable to draw on when
organizing PD with older adults. To illustrate this we have chosen a cumulative definition of
scaffolding [24] that involves the following features (see Table 1). We then align them with our
empirical material and show how the current definition is not fitting. By doing so, we want to
highlight the need for redefining our current understanding of instructional support for the
purpose of participatory design and propose situated scaffolding with its elements.
To sum up, our critique is based on the idea that we need a more situated understanding of
instructional support for the purpose of participatory design, one that is more sensitive to the
current situation of being an older adult in the aging society. More specifically, first, instructions
and learners’ understanding are mutually constituted as a relationship between instruction and
action as Garfinkel and others [14] have pointed out, but the difficulties encountered and their
resolution here are outcomes of the interwoven nature of the tools used, the goals that are trying
to be achieved and the group dynamic. Second, the notion of fading as a pedagogic pursuit might
not work for older learners, and it is possible that for some older adults fading of instructional
support will never be possible. And finally, there is a need for involving meta-instructions, as only
the access to instructions might not be enough. In the following section, we elaborate more on
these particular elements of the situated scaffolding and show how we contribute to the current
literature.
5.1 Mutually built understanding and instructions
Building mutual understanding among the participants plays a key role in participatory design
with older adults when digital tools are in play. However, that is a challenging task within PD
with older adults online, and developing adequate ways of supporting the participants’
understanding is key. For example, [50] explored the evaluation of tablets with older adults.
Sometimes, interactional difficulties were encountered because the device was too heavy, leading
to misclicking on different parts of the screen. Instructional support in the form of hands-on
advice when sitting next to the older user largely resolved the problem. Further, [1] focused on codevelopment
and evaluation of a multimedia computer system to support communication between
people with dementia and their caregivers. While working with people who often struggle with
memory and have other social and cognitive impairments they recognized the importance of nonverbal
instructions through the relationship between the “higher status partner” and learner. In a
traditional learning context, it is usually the teacher or the peer who recognizes that the learner
experiences issues in the online environment [29].
However, in online PD with older adults, our findings point to the need to carefully build
instructions and mutual understanding through verbal descriptions instead of or as well as
traditional non-verbal cues such as pointing. We contribute to this area by highlighting that as a
consequence of the dynamics of online PD who provides scaffolding to whom becomes more
12:20 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
blurred: On one hand, the moderator/researcher needs to support the learner in eliciting
descriptions of their interface. On the other hand, the way the learner will be able to (or willing to)
describe their interface, will impact the instructions the moderator will be able to provide. Hence,
a different responsibility landscape emerges.
5.2 Different fading of instructional resources
The scaffolding literature suggests that one of the key aspects of traditional scaffolding is the final
stage, so-called fading - that is, gradual taking away of the instructional support as learners
become more independent. The timing of when to take away scaffolding is crucial. Various studies
point to the removal of scaffolding when learners have internalized what is to be learned [24].
This temporal approach to scaffolding hence builds on the idea that it is possible to establish (and
reach) learning goals in the traditional sense [26]. In complex projects like real PD with older
adults, especially online, whatever learning goals might be formulated in advance, we see that
unexpected problems continually arise. The goals of individual participants at particular moments
are not always in line with goals envisaged by organizers. This might be actually more useful, as it
promotes learning opportunities such that older adults with their different motivations can take
what they want from those sessions. This is further enhanced by the benefit of doing these
activities online, as the place where older adults join our online workshop can also be chosen. In
the context of older adults as learners of digital tools in PD hence it is not always possible to take
instructional support away, and it has to be sometimes brought in again, simply because
unanticipated problems constantly arise. Our findings are hence in line with [38], who argue that,
when it comes to older adults, it is not always possible to remove the scaffolding. We contribute to
this literature, by further extending this argument and showing how socio-material resources play
out in an online PD context. In other words, providing resources online is not a problem; the issue
rather is how to support older adults in how to make sense of them in a sustainable manner.
5.3 Need for meta-instructions
When new tools become part of a new practice, to support learning of the members how to use
them, a certain meta-approach to communication is necessary. Garfinkel [14] pointed out that
rules always under-specify outcomes but what became clear to us was that the less specification,
the more varied the outcomes were. There was a vast range of didactic resources directed at older
adults which could provide them with instructions on how to reach and navigate the online space.
The local computer club, for example, has developed a range of online resources for older adults.
The German older adults association has developed extensive step-by-step manuals on how to
work with online tools, such as Telegram or Zoom. However, as we have learned from our
observations in the local computer club, not many older adults coming to the club use them.
Moreover, in many instances, instructions only made sense to our participants in the context of
their use. Contextualization often required human intervention. This type of contextualization
hence might require an additional type of instructions for the older users. For example, during an
appropriation phase of participatory design in chronic care with older users, the nurses developed
a new way how to talk about the newly developed app. In their caring conversations, the nurses
did not instruct the older users how to use the app alone but also how to communicate about their
own use with the nurses [8]. Further, [48] explored digital cheques with older adults. Through a
testing phase of physical checkups, the older adults got to experience what using such tools might
be like. The researchers then continued to introduce a digital pen that in combination with a
prototype could be used by the participants. When the older participants did not understand the
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:21
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
provided instructions on how to use the new digital artifact, the researchers instructed them to use
it in a way that is similar to their previously built experience with physical cheques.
The additional complexities entailed in understanding instructed action and problems
encountered when working in an online group context have not, as yet, been thoroughly explored.
The moment that contextual use is mediated by any digital tool, the situation becomes additionally
complex. We contribute to this body of work and through our findings point to the need to
accompany available resources with meta-instructions: instructions on how to follow the
instructions.
5.4 Specificity of older adults as a target group
The study results indicate that measures need to be considered particularly carefully for the target
group of older adults as partners in online participatory design workshops.
Related to learning and appropriation settings of IT products, geragogical expertises point out
particular characteristics in technology learning of older people, especially in terms of their
motivation to engage with digital tools [44] and specific learning preferences (more informal
learning, peer-learning [43]). Another important aspect that plays a role in the technology
adoption of older people is self-efficacy and self-images. In the worst case, digital media can be
perceived as threatening. [7] show in their study "Technology makes older adults feel older" how
age stereotypes are self-reinforced by people when they feel they lack opportunities to master
digital tools. Specific socio-demographic factors reinforce this image (low education, low income,
gender) and are important determinants of a digital divide that needs special attention for older
citizens. Transferring these geragogical findings to online learning settings shows that these
factors become even more powerful when face-to-face interaction is missing. Here, it is necessary
to think about special substitution measures; we contribute to this in this paper.
5.5 Design recommendations for situated scaffolding
In this section, we introduce design recommendations based on the different aspects of situated
scaffolding. One of the main issues we and our older participants experienced was the problem of
navigation in the tools when collaborating online. We would propose that to enable older adults to
take part in online participatory design, the future designed systems should involve features that
support building mutual understanding and instructions. More specifically, system features are
necessary which enable not only the older users’ navigation in the tool but mainly support the
moderator in guiding the user through the tool, by for example enabling highlighting a specific
section of a shared screen. In addition, to enhance managing the navigational issue as well as
tackle the issue of invisible problems, the moderators could benefit from having access to metainformation
about which tools participants join with as well as additional relevant information
such as the quality of their internet connection (to get a better idea of the reasons for the
difficulties participants have).
Further, in our work, we have seen a great need to not only provide the older adults with
instructions but also how to follow these instructions. The combination of a chat in Telegram,
video-conferencing through Zoom, and the different devices the older participants used allowed
for a good environment where such meta-instructions could be provided. Further designed
systems should include for example a chatbot supporting making sense of the provided
instructions. Many of the problems we encountered would have arguably been a great deal worse
were it not for the fact that many of our participants were already members of a Telegram group
and were familiar with its functionality. That was a default channel for raising questions or
12:22 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
seeking help made our life somewhat easier. The lesson for us was to ensure that all participants
are made familiar with such channels during an enabling phase.
Finally, effective supports are necessary not only for building systems supporting group work
but also when organizing PD work to make it more sustainable. In this context, the issue of the
fading of instructional support becomes especially important. For the purpose of designing PD
workshops online, our experiences are illustrative of the need for keeping the support for a longer
period of time, possibly also after the end of the project. This support can take various forms.
Rather than developing generic “how-to” material, question and answer prompting sources or
“how-to” material connected to a particular experience from the project might be the most
effective method of resolving difficulties. Another option is to take into account the social
environment participants can find themselves in and consider if others in participants' homes
could support or benefit from participation in PD online. ‘Others’ in conversational exchanges of
this kind can be a problem if one has little or no knowledge of who they are and what they are
seeking to do. Finally, an effort to embed the findings and activities from the PD project into the
local context, for example by involving the local actors in the process.
With hindsight, there are several things we might have prepared better, given the opportunity,
such as the use of video conferencing tools, screen sharing, using screenshots, and so on. The fact
that such preparatory work could not be done face-to-face was the source of much of our trouble.
Practically, as participants often logged in at the different points of the session, or lost connection;
when they came back to the call or logged in for the very first time, it was useful to go with them
through the following checklist:
● Can you hear us?
● Can you see us?
● Give feedback on if we do or do not hear or see them
● If problems:
● Which device are you using? (Phone/iPhone/Laptop)
Our findings suggest that it was crucial to keep this checklist relatively brief because the struggles
older participants experience emerge quite quickly and it is often necessary to address them in a
rapid way. There are many things taking place at the same time during the online workshops
(monitoring own screen, following tasks, listening to what other participants are saying), and
losing contact with the Zoom room can cause quite intense distress to the older adults as well as
to the organizers. Hence, it was useful to use this quick check-in when onboarding them back to
the session or when the older adults started experiencing for example troubles with connection. It
was hence necessary that these questions are brief so that they are also easy to understand for the
older participants. In relation to the last point, since it was not possible to be familiar with all the
different devices, it was useful to have print screens of how interfaces from the different
combinations of devices and systems look like (android/Apple, tablet/phone/laptop).
6 CONCLUSION
In this section, we first address the limits of our work, the issue of trustworthiness, and then
conclude the paper. Despite our best efforts, our work reported in this paper has its limits. The key
limitation is the issue of the specificity of COVID-19 related context. Once the restrictions as a
consequence of COVID-19 will be taken away, it remains to be seen if a preference for online PD
with older adults will vanish. Despite that we believe that the situated scaffolding can be also
found in contexts beyond online PD, it was here where the issues were the most prevalent and in
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:23
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
some cases became the least possible to solve. Future research should hence focus on instructional
support and more specifically situated scaffolding and explore if and how it is meaningful to make
use of it outside of the primarily online context.
Regarding the validity of our results, in contrast to quantitative studies, some authors have
suggested discussing the trustworthiness of qualitative studies to evaluate the quality of their
work [10]. Hence, we have included the following to increase the trustworthiness of our work.
First, we made sure to include in-person contact when recruiting the participants (see section 3.1
focused on recruitment of participants through dinner and a previously established Telegram
chat). Our point here is that the relationships we have been developing with our participants have
been a continuation of our effort to develop aging research in the local area. Second, we have used
different modes of communication to keep our online workshops inclusive (emails, messengers,
phones, and video-conferencing tools). Third, during our workshops, we made sure to behave in
an empathetic way and to stay patient with the older adults which was highly appreciated from
their side. Thanks to this we were able to develop mutual trust with our participants, which is key
in ethnographic research. Finally, as a form of triangulation we have included using a range of
data collection methods: workshops video recording; taking field notes as a form of observations
during the workshops; conducting interviews; continuous analysis of the Telegram chat;
monitoring and analyzing individual supportive talks that took place.
To conclude, in this paper, we aimed to understand how to organize participatory design
workshops with older adults online. More specifically, we explored the instructional support for
older adults in participatory workshops online. By drawing on ethnographic informed methods
with action-research orientation, we explored the case of collaborating and learning with older
adults online. Our results provide a more nuanced understanding of scaffolding that we label
situated scaffolding. We provide recommendations for system design and organization of
participatory design online to achieve a more sustainable participatory design with older adults.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been developed within the project ACCESS. This project was funded by JPI MYBL,
which is supported by J-Age II. J-Age II is funded by Horizon2020, the EU Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation, under Grant Agreement nr 643850. We are especially thankful to our
participants for sharing their time with us and allowing us to learn from them.
REFERENCES
[1] Arlene Astell. 2009. Involving older people with dementia and their carers in designing computer based support
systems – some methodological considerations. Universal Access in the Information Society 8: 49–58.
[2] Maria Beimborn, Selma Kadi, Nina Köberer, Mara Mühleck, and Mone Spindler. 2016. Interdisciplinary Reflections on
Ageing and Technology. In Ageing and Technology, Emma Domínguez-Rué and Linda Nierling (eds.). Transcript
Verlag, 311–334.
[3] Jeanette Blomberg, Jean Giacomi, Andrea Mosher, and Pat Swenton-Wall. 2017. Ethnographic field methods and their
relation to design. In Participatory Design (1st ed.), Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka (eds.). CRC Press, 123–155.
[4] Nancy Bobblet. 2012. Scaffolding: Defining the Metaphor. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL 12, 2: 1–16.
[5] Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2016. Unpacking the Notion of Participation in Participatory Design. Computer
supported cooperative work: CSCW: an international journal 25, 6: 425–475.
[6] Simone Carlo and Francesco Bonifacio. 2020. “You Don’t Need Instagram, It’s for Young People”: Intergenerational
Relationships and ICTs Learning Among Older Adults. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Technology
and Society, 29–41.
[7] Avner Caspi, Merav Daniel, and Gitit Kavé. 2019. Technology makes older adults feel older. Aging & mental health 23,
8: 1025–1030.
12:24 Katerina Cerna et al.
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
[8] Katerina Cerna, Miria Grisot, Anna Sigridur Islind, Tomas Lindroth, Johan Lundin, and Gunnar Steineck. 2020.
Changing Categorical Work in Healthcare: the Use of Patient-Generated Health Data in Cancer Rehabilitation.
Computer supported cooperative work: CSCW: an international journal 29, 5: 563–586.
[9] Diego Compagna and Florian Kohlbacher. 2015. The limits of participatory technology development: The case of
service robots in care facilities for older people. Technological forecasting and social change 93: 19–31.
[10] John W. Creswell. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE.
[11] George Demiris, Debra R. Parker Oliver, Brian Hensel, Geraldine Dickey, Marilyn Rantz, and Marjorie Skubic. 2008.
Use of videophones for distant caregiving: an enriching experience for families and residents in long-term care.
Journal of gerontological nursing 34, 7: 50–55.
[12] Yvonne Earnshaw. 2017. Navigating Turn-Taking and Conversational Repair in an Online Synchronous Course.
Online Learning Journal 21, 4. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183766/
[13] Thomas N. Friemel. 2016. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New
Media & Society 18, 2: 313–331.
[14] Harold Garfinkel. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
[15] Charles Goodwin. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of pragmatics 32, 10:
1489–1522.
[16] J. M. Guralnik, J. L. Balfour, and S. Volpato. 2000. The ratio of older women to men: historical perspectives and crossnational
comparisons. Aging 12, 2: 65–76.
[17] Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.Hum.
Interact. 18, 3: 1–20.
[18] Christian Heath, Jon Hindmarsh, and Paul Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
[19] Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2011. Gesture and institutional interaction. Embodied interaction: Language and body in
the material world: 276–288.
[20] Dominik Hornung, Claudia Müller, Irina Shklovski, Timo Jakobi, and Volker Wulf. 2017. Navigating Relationships
and Boundaries: Concerns around ICT-uptake for Elderly People. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17), 7057–7069.
[21] Kun Huang. 2019. Design and investigation of cooperative, scaffolded wiki learning activities in an online graduatelevel
course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16, 1: 1–18.
[22] Juliane Jarke and Susanne Maaß. 2018. Probes as participatory design practice. i-com 17, 2: 99–102.
[23] Athanassios Jimoyiannis and Maria Gravani. 2011. Exploring Adult Digital Literacy Using Learners’ and Educators’
Perceptions and Experiences: The Case of the Second Chance Schools in Greece. Educational Technology & Society 14,
1: 217–227.
[24] Aditya Johri and Seungwon Yang. 2017. Scaffolded Help for Learning: How Experts Collaboratively Support
Newcomer Participation in Online Communities. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities
and Technologies (C&T ’17), 149–158.
[25] Brigitte Jordan and Austin Henderson. 1995. Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences 4, 1: 39–103.
[26] Nurul Farhana Jumaat and Zaidatun Tasir. 2014. Instructional Scaffolding in Online Learning Environment: A Metaanalysis.
In 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, 74–77.
[27] Martha Larkin. 2002. Using Scaffolded Instruction To Optimize Learning. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474301.pdf
[28] Marí­a Laura Ramí­rez Galleguillos and Aykut Coşkun. 2020. How Do I matter? A Review of the Participatory Design
Practice with Less Privileged Participants. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 Participation(s)
Otherwise - Volume 1 (PDC ’20), 137–147.
[29] Lina Lee. 2008. Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language
learning & technology 12, 3. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44155/1/12_03_lee.pdf
[30] Stephen Lindsay, Daniel Jackson, Guy Schofield, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Engaging older people using participatory
design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 1199–1208.
[31] Lena Mamykina, Elizabeth Mynatt, Patricia Davidson, and Daniel Greenblatt. 2008. MAHI: Investigation of Social
Scaffolding for Reflective Thinking in Diabetes Management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’08), 477–486.
[32] Jennifer Ellen Masters. 2008. Teachers Scaffolding Children Working with Computers. VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e.K.
[33] Sebastian Merkel and Alexander Kucharski. 2019. Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A Systematic Literature
Review. The Gerontologist 59, 1: e16–e25.
[34] Johanna Meurer, Claudia Müller, Carla Simone, Ina Wagner, and Volker Wulf. 2018. Designing for Sustainability: Key
Issues of ICT Projects for Ageing at Home. Computer supported cooperative work: CSCW: an international journal 27, 3:
495–537.
[35] Ryan C. Moore and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2020. Older Adults, Social Technologies, and the Coronavirus Pandemic:
Challenges, Strengths, and Strategies for Support. Social Media + Society 6, 3: 2056305120948162.
[36] Wendy Moyle, Cindy Jones, Jenny Murfield, and Fangli Liu. 2020. “For me at 90, it’s going to be difficult”: feasibility of
using iPad video-conferencing with older adults in long-term aged care. Aging & mental health 24, 2: 349–352.
Situated Scaffolding for Sustainable Participatory Design 12:25
PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. GROUP, Article 12, Publication date: January 2022.
[37] Claudia Müller, Dominik Hornung, Theodor Hamm, and Volker Wulf. 2015. Measures and tools for supporting ICT
appropriation by elderly and non tech-savvy persons in a long-term perspective. In ECSCW 2015: Proceedings of the
14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19-23 September 2015, Oslo, Norway. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 263–281.
[38] Claudia Müller, Dominik Hornung, Theodor Hamm, and Volker Wulf. 2015. Practice-based Design of a Neighborhood
Portal: Focusing on Elderly Tenants in a City Quarter Living Lab. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), 2295–2304.
[39] Claudia Müller, Cornelius Neufeldt, David Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2012. ICT-development in residential care
settings: sensitizing design to the life circumstances of the residents of a care home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 2639–2648.
[40] James Nicholson, Ben Morrison, Matt Dixon, Jack Holt, Lynne Coventry, and Jill McGlasson. 2021. Training and
Embedding Cybersecurity Guardians in Older Communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–15.
[41] Britt Östlund, Elin Olander, Oskar Jonsson, and Susanne Frennert. 2015. STS-inspired design to meet the challenges of
modern aging. Welfare technology as a tool to promote user driven innovations or another way to keep older users
hostage? Technological forecasting and social change 93: 82–90.
[42] Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto. 2021. Getting Ourselves Together:
Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1–11.
[43] Kaisa Pihlainen, Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro, and Eija Kärnä. 2021. Perceived benefits from non-formal digital
training sessions in later life: views of older adult learners, peer tutors, and teachers. International Journal of Lifelong
Education: 1–15.
[44] Renate Schramek. 2016. Learning for the elderly: Education as A relational process. International Journal of Innovation
and Research in Educational Sciences 3, 3. Retrieved May 18, 2021 from
https://ijires.org/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/IJIRES_614_Final.pdf
[45] Mary T. Siniscarco, Cynthia Love-Williams, and Sarah Burnett-Wolle. 2017. Video Conferencing: An Intervention for
Emotional Loneliness in Long-Term Care. Activities, adaptation & aging 41, 4: 316–329.
[46] Tiina Tambaum. 2017. Teenaged Internet tutors’ use of scaffolding with older learners. Journal of Adult and
Continuing Education 23, 1: 97–118.
[47] Łukasz Tomczyk, Anna Mróz, Katarzyna Potyrała, and Joanna Wnęk-Gozdek. 2020. Digital inclusion from the
perspective of teachers of older adults - expectations, experiences, challenges and supporting measures. Gerontology &
geriatrics education: 1–16.
[48] John Vines, Mark Blythe, Paul Dunphy, Vasillis Vlachokyriakos, Isaac Teece, Andrew Monk, and Patrick Olivier. 2012.
Cheque mates: participatory design of digital payments with eighty somethings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 1189–1198.
[49] L. S. Vygotsky. 1978. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
[50] Jenny Waycott, Sonja Pedell, Frank Vetere, Elizabeth Ozanne, Lars Kulik, Alan Gruner, and John Downs. 2012.
Actively engaging older adults in the development and evaluation of tablet technology. In Proceedings of the 24th
Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI ’12), 643–652.
[51] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and
psychiatry, and allied disciplines 17, 2: 89–100.
[52] David Wood and David Middleton. 1975. A study of assisted problem-solving. British journal of psychology 66, 2: 181–
191.
[53] Eileen Wood, Catherine Lanuza, Iuliana Baciu, Meagan MacKenzie, and Amanda Nosko. 2010. Instructional Styles,
Attitudes and Experiences of Seniors in Computer Workshops. Educational gerontology 36, 10–11: 834–857.
Received July 2021; revised September 2021; accepted October 2021.