GWT International Conference 2022 - Practice that transforms intergenerational programs
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•48 vistas
Dr Shannon Jarrott, Ohio State University, USA shared a model of intergenerational practice informed by theory and tested over decades of community-based collaborative research with intergenerational practitioners, participants, and scholars.
![Practice that Transforms
Intergenerational Programs
Shannon E. Jarrott
Presentation made at the Generations Working Together Conference [Virtual]
March 9, 2022](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/shannonjarrottpp-igmodel2022-220310080535/85/GWT-International-Conference-2022-Practice-that-transforms-intergenerational-programs-1-320.jpg)
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a GWT International Conference 2022 - Practice that transforms intergenerational programs
Similar a GWT International Conference 2022 - Practice that transforms intergenerational programs (20)
Más de Alison Clyde
Más de Alison Clyde (20)
Último
Último (20)
GWT International Conference 2022 - Practice that transforms intergenerational programs
- 1. Practice that Transforms Intergenerational Programs Shannon E. Jarrott Presentation made at the Generations Working Together Conference [Virtual] March 9, 2022
- 2. 2 Objectives 1. Introduce ourselves 2. Recognize supporting theory, research 3. Map model development 4. Identify the practices in the evidence- based practice model 5. Illustrate resources for applying the model
- 5. 5
- 6. 6 Objective 2. Recognize theory informing practice
- 7. 7 Psychosocial developmental theory (Erikson) Intergenerational relationships support navigation of many developmental tasks Theory informs practice and research It’s all about the relationship • Trust • Autonomy • Initiative • Industry • Identity • Intimacy • Generativity • Ego Integrity
- 8. 8 Contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998) Positive intergroup relationships supported by: 1. support from authorities, tradition, law 2. perceived equal group status 3. cooperation 4. towards a common goal 5. opportunities for friendship Theory informs practice and research It’s all about the relationship
- 9. 9 Stereotype embodiment theory (Levy, 2009) Attitudes we have towards older adults and aging influence our experience of old age, including health and longevity Theory informs practice and research It’s all about the relationship
- 10. 10 Objective 3. Map model development
- 11. 11 Montessori-based programming 2001 Jarrott & Gozali (2008)
- 12. 12 Initiated Staff-Student-Faculty Study Group; launched intergenerational cross-training Jarrott, Stremmel, & Naar (2019) 2003
- 13. 13 Intergenerational programming informed by theory results in higher levels of intergenerational interaction than programming that lacks theoretical influence Jarrott & Smith (2011) 2009
- 14. 14 USDA Community-based Pilot revealed the relevance of contact theory to community- university partnerships Weaver, Naar, & Jarrott (2017) 2011
- 15. 15 Staff trained to use the Evidence-based Model consistently implemented most intergenerational practices. Juckett, Jarrott, Naar, Scrivano, & Bunger (2021) 2013
- 16. 16 Practices grouped by dimensions of: participant grouping, person- centered strategies, and socioemotional accommodations. 1 Greater use of grouping and person-centered practices contributed to greater intergenerational interaction. 2 1Jarrott, Turner, Naar, Juckett, & Scrivano, 2021; 2Jarrott, Turner, Juris, Scrivano & Weaver (2021) 2014
- 17. 17 Eisner survey results reflected practitioner need for training, evaluation, and networking opportunities Jarrott & Lee (2022) 2018
- 18. 18 National (US) survey of intergenerational programs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Demonstrating impact Finding IG peers Funding IG programming Staffing IG programming Locating IG training resources Top Challenges Jarrott & Lee (2022) Aging & Social Policy (available open access) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08959420.2021.2024410 See also https://www.gu.org/resources/all-in-together-creating-places-where-young-and-old-thrive/ Eisner survey results reflected practitioner need for training, evaluation, and networking opportunities
- 19. 19 Findings from Project TRIP and a Delphi review informed revisions to the Best Practices Model and Evaluation tool. Establish Criteria Evaluate the Tool Revise the Tool Re-evaluate the Tool Delphi Panelists 2019
- 20. 20 Findings from Project TRIP and a Delphi review informed revisions to the Best Practices Model and Evaluation tool. 2022
- 21. 21 Objective 4. Identify the practices in the evidence-based practice model
- 22. 22 1. Make time for adult and youth program activity leaders to plan programming. Before programming It’s all about the relationship
- 23. 23 2. Design programming to reflect participant input and/or knowledge of participant culture, experiences, interests, and language(s). Before programming It’s all about the relationship
- 24. 24 3. Select/arrange space and materials to reflect participants’ diversity (cognitive, cultural, developmental, sensory, and/or socioeconomic) Before programming It’s all about the relationship
- 25. 25 4. Provide older adults with age- and ability- appropriate roles During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 26. 26 5. Present activity materials in a paired or central format. During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 27. 27 6. Facilitate programming in intergenerational pairs or small groups. During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 28. 28 7. Use directions to encourage intergenerational interaction. During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 29. 29 8. Invite (or help) participants to share social history to encourage intergenerational interaction. During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 30. 30 9. Step back to promote intergenerational interaction, avoid staff-centered programming. During programming It’s all about the relationship
- 31. 31 10. Invite participants to provide feedback after the activity. After programming It’s all about the relationship
- 32. 32 11. Assess programming a. Should it be repeated with or without modifications? b. Did the intergenerational aspect affect the activity? After programming It’s all about the relationship
- 33. 33 11. Assess programming c. Characterize participant behavior After programming It’s all about the relationship
- 34. 34 11. Assess programming d. Characterize participant affect After programming It’s all about the relationship
- 35. 35 11. Assess programming e. Tailored evaluation After programming It’s all about the relationship
- 36. 36 11. Assess programming a. Novice – note progress towards goals b. Intermediate – match goals with an existing measure individuals can complete on their own c. Advanced – match goals with existing interview or observation measures Before and after programming It’s all about the relationship
- 37. 37 11. Assess programming - Example Mindful Mentors (6th graders and community older adult volunteers) a. Novice – teacher notes observations and compares grades over time and between participating and non-participating students b. Intermediate – students complete attitude scale; older adults complete generativity scale c. Advanced – trained observer completes observation scale; youth complete empathy interview Before and after programming It’s all about the relationship
- 38. 38 Objective 5. Share resources for applying the model
- 39. 39
- 40. 40 • Details practices with examples • IG Program Evaluation Tool with example • Evaluation planning guide with example • Information about and printable versions of established measures for youth, older adults, and other stakeholders used in IG research https://www.gu.org/resources/intergenerational-evaluation-toolkit/
- 42. 42 Continuing education course • 3 self-paced modules: (a) make the case for intergenerational practice, (b) guide partnership formation, and (c)present the practice model • Designed for new and experienced IG practitioners or supervisors. • Accredited by Association of Social Work Board • Mobile user-friendly; ADA accessible • US$75 for 2.5 CEU; fee waivers remain (CODE M1YFCH) https://osucosw.catalog.instructure.com/courses/ig-programs
- 46. 46 Objectives 1. Introductions 2. Recognize supporting theory, research 3. Map model development 4. Identify the evidence-based practice model 5. Illustrate resources for applying the model
- 47. 47 Thank you! Funding Acknowledgement • USDA Award Nos. 2011- 41520-30639 & 2016-41520- 25616 • Eisner Foundation Contact jarrott.1@osu.edu
- 48. 48 Bibliography Jarrott, S. E., Gozali, T., & Gigliotti, C. M. (2008). Montessori Programming for persons with dementia in the group setting: An analysis of engagement and affect. Dementia, 7(1), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301207085370 Jarrott, S. E., & Lee, K. (2022). Shared site intergenerational programs: A national profile. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2021.2024410 Jarrott, S. E., Morris, M. M., Burnett, A. J., Stauffer, D., Stremmel, A. S., & Gigliotti, C. M. (2011). Creating community capacity at a shared site intergenerational program: “Like a barefoot climb up a mountain.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9 (4), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2011.619925 Jarrott, S.E. & Smith, C.L. (2011). The complement of research and theory in practice: Contact theory at work in nonfamilial intergenerational programs. The Gerontologist, 51 (1), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq058 Jarrott, S. E., Stremmel, A. J., & Naar, J. J. (2019). Practice that transforms intergenerational programs: A model of theory - and evidence-informed principles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17 (4), 488-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2019.1579154 Jarrott. S. E., Turner, S. G., Juris, J., Scrivano, R. M., & Weaver, R. H. (2021). Program practices predict intergenerational interaction among children and older adults. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab161 Jarrott, S. E., Turner, S. G.,& Naar, J. J., Juckett, L. M., & Scrivano, R. M.* (2021). Increasing the power of intergenerational programs: Advancing an evaluation tool. Journal of Applied Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F07334648211015459 Juckett, L., Jarrott, S. E., Naar, J. J., Scrivano, R., & Bunger, A. C. (2021). Implementing intergenerational best practices in community-based settings: A pre-implementation study. Health Promotion Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839921994072 Weaver, R., Naar, J. J., & Jarrott, S. E. (2019). Using contact theory to assess staff perspectives on training initiatives of an intergenerational programming intervention. Advance online publication. The Gerontologist, 59(4), 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx194
Notas del editor
- How about you? Would you describe yourself as: An intergenerational practitioner An intergenerational researcher An intergenerational stakeholder (participant, policy maker, student, other)
- Trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, identity,intimacy, generativity, and ego integrity
- Question: If you’ve seen these affect programming (because they are present or absent), which one resonates with you most? Support from authority figures, tradition, or law Participants perceive equal group status Programming characterized by cooperation rather than competition Participants share a goal Programming supports friendship
- In Levy’s research, she found greater functional health and 7.5 years greater longevity among those with more positive self-perceptions of aging than among those with negative self-perceptions. These findings have been replicated around the globe. They should give us purpose – we should find it our duty to help our children, our parents, ourselves sustain or build lives that are rewarding at every age.
- KEEP IT SHORT
- An Internal grant funded piloted intergenerational cross-training and the IG Observation Scale. Topics covered similarities and differences between the participant groups, emphasizing a strengths-based approach, allowing young and older participants to use their abilities as best they can, to give them a chance to provide input, and to pay attention to the influence of the environment on participants’ experiences. A study group of core program stakeholders met monthly to discuss things like our vocabular! We would use a word that would make our child development colleagues gasp and then they’d offer a term that didn’t make sense to us! Have you found youth and older adult program staff use terms that seem at odds with each other? What were those terms or ideas?
- As we worked through several years delivering, fine tuning our cross training, we felt we were seeing differences in older adults and young participants’ responses. A new IG program – also with adult day services and child care – opened up a few towns away and we thought they looked like a lot of intergenerational programs we’d seen – that is, using a more performative model without drawing on theory and evidence to support their practice. We used our intergenerational observation scale to observe the young and older participants’ during programming, and we started noting activity leaders’ practices as well. We found that the programming reflecting developmental and relational theory achieved higher levels of IG interaction than programming that did not. Hint at what I mean by relational theory and absence of it elsewhere
- USDA funded community-based pilot of best practices training, programming, and documentation.We struggled the first few years because we didn’t engage as equal partners – and our practice colleagues felt their experience wasn’t valued. We ended up ending that relationship and new sites came on board through an application process. We learned that, as we consider younger and older persons as different contact groups, researchers and practitioners might also be considered disparate groups– contact theory tenets also apply to relationships among organizations, including with evaluation/research partners. Have you had an experience working with a research, university, or community partner and felt that members weren’t equal partners? What happened to that partnership? CONSIDER ADDING TENETS OF THE CONTACT THEORY HERE ALSO - REMINDER
- Training that staff completed at those first few sites was done in-person – it was impossible to get people for such a big block of time. Realizing the challenges – and that we couldn’t measure effectiveness of training if we couldn’t get people to complete the training, we created self-paced online training to accommodate the challenges of providing shared training live (for 7 hours!). The training covered a number of best practices, which were reflected in a checklist that activity leaders were asked to complete after every activity. Many of these activities were also observed by members of the research team who also noted which practices the activity leaders completed during programming. It turns out that these theory- and evidence-informed practices could be consistently implemented by staff. There were some gaps in what activity leaders said they’d achieved compared to observers, but the findings told us a few important things: (1) the training worked, (2) the practices were acceptable and highly replicable for staff, and (3) some practices needed to be clearer (these had more disagreement between observer and activity leader about whether the activity leader had used it) or might not be relevant (they were rarely used). Relating back to my last slide – we also found that those who completed self-paced online training (who were in our second group of sites) did better than those who were in the first group of sites and did in-person training. So, authority support – this time from the site staff themselves – may have made a difference in their commitment to learn and exercise these practices.
- Jarrott et al., 2021 – we continued looking at these best practice checklists to see if the data could tell us how to simplify our model and to see how the practices related to each other. We conducted a factor analysis, finding dimensions of: (a) grouping participants (e.g., using an equal or near equal number of youth and older adults; using paired materials; and grouping participants into pairs or trios), (b) using person-centered strategies (e.g., developing programming to reflect participants experiences and interests, offering role-appropriate programming for older adults, and inviting participants to share their stories with intergenerational partners), and © socioemotional accommodation of participants (incorporating staff knowledge of participants – such as making adaptations to space and materials to accommodate participants’ abilities or limitations) Jarrott et al., 2021 – when more practices related to (a) participant pairing and (b) person-centered strategies were used, children and older adults exhibited higher levels of engagement with IG partners. Interestingly – we thought that time in the program might affect level of interaction – such that someone would build comfort over time, resulting in higher levels of interaction, but it didn’t matter whether the child or older person was brand new to the intergenerational setting – the activity leaders’ practices made the difference. Through Project TRIP, we had qualitative data and quantitative data that supported changes we thought we could make that would improve our model, which would mean revising our training and evaluation tools. At the same time that we were thinking about modifications to our model…
- Eisner survey Jarrott & Lee, 2022 – conducted in 2018 with funding from The Eisner Foundation and in partnership with Generations United. Surveying US intergenerational practitioners we learned that they were meeting the needs of tens of thousands of younger and older people of all abilities and circumstances. And they needed help…
- Getting responses from over 100 practitioners (the 2022 publication focuses on shared sites), we learned that resources are still needed for training, staffing, funding, connecting, and evaluating – the greatest need is demonstrating impact. Practitioners know their program works, and they have to demonstrate this to be competitive securing clients and funders, but they often don’t have the training or resources to gather this evaluation data. Can you relate? Which of these top challenges reflect challenges you experience in developing or operating an intergenerational program?
- As we thought about how we could get our leaner, cleaner model and evaluation tool grounded in theory, practice, and evidence, out to respond to this nation-wide need, we thought – we better call in the big shots. We were revising the tool to assess use of practices and working to incorporate constructs from our observation scale (which is very cumbersome to learn and not widely used because of it). We conducted a Delphi panel with over 20 intergenerational researchers and practitioners. Together we agreed on the criteria for evaluating a best practices evaluation tool and then evaluated the tool against the criteria. We had good support for the tool; feedback from the panelists helped us: (a) identify inconsistent use of terminology and (b) gain perspective on diverse cultural settings and services for different ages and abilities of youth and older persons.
- If you have counterparts who share responsibility for programming, what is their method for planning?
- What diversities besides age are represented within your participant groups?
- Does your intergen How do you support age- and ability-appropriate roles for the older adults in your program?
- Have you ever noticed differences when you arrange participants or materials in different ways?
- How many of you are working with very young children (3 and under) or older adults with cognitive impairment, or both?
- What might you look for if you let yourself step back from the activity for a minute?
- If you invite participants to provide feedback, how do you usually do it?
- In a study we conducted with a precursor of the best practices tool, activity leaders noted if they had adapted the activity while implementing it – this happened in over 40% of the 100+ activities – frequently shifting to a plan b or modifying something in the environment. If you want to build a catalogue of programming ideas that work in your setting, you want to get those notes down about modifications made or that you want to try next time. Jarrott, Morris et al., 2011 Like a barefoot climb up a mountain How many of you have seen something work well with young or older participants and didn’t translate well to an intergenerational activity?
- Screen shot – not as content dense as a 3-credit university course might be
- Screen shot – not as content dense as a 3-credit university course might be
- Screen shot – not as content dense as a 3-credit university course might be
- Please post flier in chat box on this slide
- Screen shot – not as content dense as a 3-credit university course might be
- Screen shot – not as content dense as a 3-credit university course might be
- Longer description – informed by developmental and relationship theory, Jarrott has collaborated with scholars and practitioners to develop and test a model of intergenerational practice proven to support positive intergenerational interactions among youth and older adult participants, opening opportunities to pursue other objectives through shared programming. Findings have been used to develop multi-media training materials and evaluation tools to support practitioners in demonstrating the impact their program has on individuals, families, and communities. In this presentation, Shannon will share resources that informed her work, findings of her research, and resultant resources to help build an intergenerational nation.