IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL.
17, 2024
Exploring Intergenerational Interactions Through
an Online Storytelling Experience
Eva Cerezo , Teresa Coma-Roselló , Antonio Aguelo , Ana Cristina Blasco-Serrano ,
and María Ángeles Garrido
Abstract—Intergenerational games to be played by grandpar-
ents and their grandchildren can be mutually beneficial for both
age groups: breaking with age stereotypes, linking the learning and
leisure needs of both generations and encouraging communication,
solidarity, and social connectedness between generations. Due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, it was necessary to switch from colocated
physical intergenerational play to online experiences. This type of
experience, in which grandparents connect from their own houses
to participate, represents a challenge in terms of recruiting partic-
ipants and carrying out the online sessions, due to grandparents’
technological insecurities and their reluctance to play videogames.
Besides, intergenerational games have to be carefully designed to
promote symmetrical interactions, fun, and engagement on the part
of both age groups as well as to develop easy to use interfaces. In this
work, we present an online storytelling game designed to be played
by family teams formed by grandparents and their grandchildren.
The guidelines followed, the assessment tools designed to evaluate
the intergenerational dynamics and the emotions that arise dur-
ing the experience are also presented. Results of the three online
sessions carried out are presented and discussed.
Index Terms—Intergenerational dynamics, online games,
storytelling, technological acceptance.
I. INTRODUCTION AND GOALS: DESIGNING
INTERGENERATIONAL GAMING EXPERIENCES
HE increase in life expectancy has given grandparents the
T opportunity to interact with their grandchildren and partic-
ipate in their lives. Studies [1], [2], [3], [4] show that video games
can be a cohesion tool that enhances socialization between young
and old. In fact, digital games can be individually beneficial
Manuscript received 23 September 2022; revised 12 January 2023 and 16
March 2023; accepted 17 March 2023. Date of publication 23 March 2023;
date of current version 4 January 2024. This work was supported in part by the
Ministry of Science and Innovation, in part by the Spanish Research Agency
(AEI), in part by the Spanish Government and the EU (FEDER) under Grant
RTI2018-096986-B-C31, and in part by the Aragonese Government (Affective-
Lab, Group T60_23R). (Corresponding author: Eva Cerezo.)
This work involved human subjects or animals in its research. Approval of
all ethical and experimental procedures and protocols was granted by CEIBA
(Comité de Ética de la Investigación y de la Experimentación Animal, ULL),
under Application No. 2020-0416.
Eva Cerezo is with the Department of Computing and Systems Engineering,
University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain (e-mail: ecerezo@unizar.es).
Teresa Coma-Roselló and Ana Cristina Blasco-Serrano are with the Depart-
ment of Education Science, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
(e-mail: tcoma@unizar.es; anablas@unizar.es).
Antonio Aguelo and María Ángeles Garrido are with the Department of
Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
(e-mail: aaguelo@unizar.es; garridoa@unizar.es).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TLT.2023.3260955
1939-1382 © 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
157
for both generations. For older adults, they can improve cogni-
tive functioning (e.g., short-term capacity, memory, attention,
hand–eye coordination) [5]; overcome communication prob-
lems and social isolation [6]; and encourage physical exercising
and prevent falls [7]. For children, collaborative digital games
can improve learning, skill building, and healthy development
[8]; can encourage learning, exploration, experimentation, and
construction of knowledge; and can develop imagination and
creativity [9]. Moreover, intergenerational interactions can be
mutually beneficial for both collectives: breaking with some age
stereotypes or ageist attitudes [10] and developing civic engage-
ment and contributing to an age-inclusive society [11], [12].
In spite of these findings, the number of projects focusing
on intergenerational games is scarce. The PERGAMEX project
[13] tries to fill that gap by extending previous pervasive gaming
experiences in interactive spaces [14] to intergenerational groups
[15]. We have focused on family groups formed by grandparents
(adults over 60 years old) and grandchildren (kids between 5 and
12 years old) with the aim of providing them with joint gaming
experiences and even involving them in co-creation processes
following successful examples found in the literature [16], [17],
[18]. However, due to the restrictions for health reasons and
regulations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was
impossible to continue the PERGAMEX gaming experiences in
which grandparents and grandchildren played together face to
face manipulating physical objects. Therefore, it was necessary
to move to other types of gaming experiences: specifically,
online games. Switching to online experiences was a major
challenge as we had to involve grandparents alone at home in
a digital experience with no help. Besides, the experience had
to be designed so that both age groups could feel comfortable
and have fun. In addition, we had to be able to properly assess
the online experience and detect the intergenerational dynamics
and the acceptance of such experiences. It was decided to carry
out a study to try to answer the following research questions.
RQ1: Can an online gaming experience contribute to greater
technological acceptance among older adults of intergenera-
tional digital games?
RQ2: Can an online gaming experience enhance intergenera-
tional relationships?
RQ3: What kind of problem-solving strategies emerge in an
online intergenerational experience?
RQ4. What kind of emotions emerge in an online intergenera-
tional experience? Would the experience be satisfactory?
 158
RQ5: Is it feasible to carry out an online intergenerational
activity? What would be its differential value?
In order to answer these questions, we have carried out the
following work.
1) We have extracted intergenerational design guidelines
from the literature as well as from our previous intergen-
erational playing experiences.
2) We have designed assessment tools, including an observa-
tion sheet and questionnaires, to be able to assess the inter-
generational experience, the intergenerational dynamics,
and the acceptance of such experiences.
3) We have designed an online intergenerational game and
carried out three online intergenerational playing sessions
that have been assessed using the aforementioned tools.
The aim has been to validate the usefulness of this kind
of activity to foster intergenerational dynamics and the
assessment tools designed.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In Section II,
the state of the art of intergenerational games is described, and
in Section III, design guidelines are discussed. In Section IV,
the new assessment tools are explained. The game design and
the online playing sessions are presented in Section V, whereas
Section VI is devoted to discussing their assessment. Section VII
summarizes our findings. Finally, Section VIII, our conclusions
and future work are presented.
II. STATE OF THE ART: INTERGENERATIONAL GAMING
EXPERIENCES
Different types of digital intergenerational games can be
found in the literature; some for family environments, sharing
a location or through the Internet, and others in which specific
educational aspects are sought to be applied to populations of
different ages, not necessarily among family members. After
a general search into intergenerational games, the projects se-
lected were those in which the target population is of extreme
ages (children and older adults, not necessarily family members)
and in which any digital tool is used as an interactive medium to
allow interaction whether or not physical elements are required.
We noted a predominance of location games with tangible
interaction; Save Amaze Princess [19], for example, essentially
takes the game mechanics of Ludo and Snakes and Ladders and
augments them with the use of a board projected onto a table
and the use of physical tokens with animated feedback. This
type of project is carried out on the hypothesis that, in general,
an interactive intergenerational digital game is more successful
if it takes as a reference traditional games, and if it also includes
physical elements. In their studies, Al Mahmud et al. [19]
combine observations and interviews with the use of the game
experience questionnaire (GEQ).
On the other hand, physical interactive experiences are pre-
ferred for exploring group interactions, typically of one to four
participants. Age Invaders [20], for example, has a board on
which people have to move to achieve their mission; at the
same time, they can interact online with other players. Mixed
studies combining observations and questionnaires have been
used to assess the game experience. The questionnaire used is
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
composed of 16 questions that focus on the game flow, con-
sidering features such as concentration, challenge, player skills,
control, clear goals, feedback, immersion, and social interac-
tions. Only one of the questions (“Collaborating with different
age group partner to play the game is fun”) is directly related
to intergenerational issues. Xtreme Gardener [21], meanwhile,
explores collaborative play to keep a garden protected from
the elements and anything that can harm plants. The game is
organized in such a way that children and grandparents, through
physical actions, control these elements. They are represented
on a screen by their silhouettes that are tracked by a Microsoft
Kinect device. Their assessment combines observation (number
of verbal expressions) with a postgame questionnaire designed
by the authors to measure three constructs of social engage-
ment: cooperation, communication, and partner preferences,
followed by semistructured interviews. Other experiences, such
as Cosmonauts [22], also resort to physical elements but not as
controllers (tokens or symbols) but as playable pieces (parts of
a rocket). In these experiences, observations are combined with
postgame self-designed questionnaires focusing on different
aspects (cooperation, competence, autonomy) and an adapted
version of the immersive experience questionnaire.
Online games are not usually predominant in intergenera-
tional digital games. However, it should be noted that Age
Invaders [21], for example, adds this possibility of enriching the
participatory game dynamics: grandparents and grandchildren
on the one hand, and parents on the other through the Internet.
Distributed Hide-and-Seek [23] may be a very interesting exam-
ple of online gameplay since it does not have grandparents and
grandchildren sitting remotely in front of a screen. Considering
the impossibility of frequently being together, this is a physical
game such as “hide and seek” played with the help of sensors
so that children can hide and be found, in an entertaining way,
by adults in a defined space. No assessment is discussed.
Finally, some of these games, which we could name ex-
perimental development games, consider the use of various
technologies to verify their effectiveness. eBee [24] uses an
entire previous dynamic of cocreation with grandmothers to
create small hexagonal pieces woven by hand with electronic
components. These pieces make up a board dynamic highly
attractive for children due to the various colors and textures.
The game pieces were made by grandmothers, manually, with
crochet stitching, as a symbolic form of cohesion and identi-
fication with the activity. The authors have carried out many
qualitative (observational) studies, which have made them re-
fine their proposal. MeteorQuest [25] is a ubiquitous game
played with mobiles. By means of geolocation, the family
travels through certain areas in a city “hunting” the frag-
ments of a meteorite that has fallen to the ground. In their
studies, the researchers combine smartphones log-files, socio-
spatial observations, the GEQ, and postgame interviews. The
shared-action (or time-movement synchrony) game designed
by Seaborn et al. [26] makes use of two different interfaces:
a finger-based version, inspired by medical exercise technology,
and a smart shoe-based interface. In their exploratory studies
with families, the authors combine observations (video and
audio captured) with postplay questionnaires to assess the game
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
experience (based on the GEQ), the interfaces, and subjective
intergenerational empathy.
As can be seen, most of the cited works have explored phys-
ical and colocated interactions, not so much pure digital ones.
Moreover, in spite of the increased interest in technologies for
fostering intergenerational connectivity and relationships, there
is a lack of consistent methodologies and specific assessment
methods [27]. Most of the cited works combine qualitative
methods (observations and interviews, generally nondetailed)
with the use of questionnaires. The questionnaires used focus
on evaluating the usability of the games, the game experience
(making use of general GEQs), or some specific aspect the
authors were interested in. However, none of them focus on
assessing the intergenerational dynamics during the game nor
the willingness of both generations to play together.
In order to explore their potential to support successful inter-
generational experiences, it is necessary to identify the factors
to be considered in the design of these games.
III. DESIGNING DIGITAL INTERGENERATIONAL EXPERIENCES
A. Design Factors in the Literature
Regarding the factors to be taken into account to design
intergenerational digital games, the work of De la Hera et al. [3]
stands out. In their work, they make an exhaustive review of the
state of the art in order to obtain not only information about the
benefits of intergenerational digital game-playing practices but
also the design factors to be taken into account. They find that the
most effective way to narrow the gap between generations and
motivate mutual learning is through narratives used as the basis
for game mechanics design. The work of Kolthoff et al. [4] is also
relevant. Starting from the work of De la Hera et al. [3] and the
works of Chiong [28] and Zhang and Kaufman [1], they propose
13 design factors and contrast them with interviews among
older adults and young people. The interviews confirmed the
importance of five factors: weighing up of different motivations
for the young and old; need for a learning component; options
for a short game; ease of use, communication, and nature of
social interaction; and that the game has to be fun and secure in
terms of privacy.
B. Previous Intergenerational Gaming Experiences
In a previous project, we developed a game “The Fantastic
Journey” to be played in the JUGUEMOS interactive space
[29], an indoor space of around 70 m2 that included a real-time
localization system, two Kinects (to support gesture interaction),
microphones, projectors, and a set of four NikVision tangible
tabletops [30]. We adapted the game so that it could be played by
children and their grandparents and organized a couple of game
sessions to get feedback from users and to observe the dynamics
of the intergenerational groups. Two sessions were carried out
[15]. The families played the game for around 1 h. Afterward, the
players were divided into two age groups: grandparents filled in a
questionnaire and children just talked about the experience. The
game was designed following the PASS model [31] to naturally
encourage dialogue and interaction. Interaction and mediation
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
159
are key to improving cognitive and motivational processes [32],
[33], generating differences in participation and leadership be-
tween generations. This is why the observations focused on those
three aspects: participation, mediation, and leadership. With re-
gard to participation, in general, all players helped each other to
see what was happening and to participate in the game activities.
Leadership was also analyzed. We could see how children led
the game as they made suggestions while grandparents observed
or helped. When children failed to perform activities, only then
did grandparents begin to act and to make decisions. The third
key that we observed was mediation. In this case, grandparents
provided the children with the materials needed to play. They
gave instructions and advice when children got stuck.
If we compare our observations with those of De la
Hera et al. [3], we find agreements but also disagreements. They
found that “Users tend to carry out asymmetric interactions,
where grandparents act as grandchildren supporters.” We also
observed asymmetric interactions during the whole game; in
fact, the game mediator had to encourage the older adults to
take a more active role in the activities. However, with regard
to De la Hera’s statement “Grandparents adapt to the game’s
content much better than young gamers do. It may, therefore,
be of interest to design games according to young people’s
preferences” differences were found: it is true that older adults
adapted well to all types of activities but the children also adapted
to “more adult” ones. In addition, we realize that using a game
based on a familiar activity for the older adults allows them
to show themselves as “masters,” which they enjoy, and, as the
children see them as experts, it helps to break down the usual age
stereotypes. In contrast, those activities which the older adults
see that children are more used to (using a Kinect) make them
assume a more passive role; in those cases, the mediator had to
encourage the older adults and just one of them took part.
The experience was very positively considered by both age
groups. They all agreed that they had a good time and were
grateful for the opportunity of playing together. We realized that,
although we split the age groups to comment on the experience,
they were very interested in commenting on the experience with
the other age group. In fact, we observed that talking about the
game experience itself could be a good topic of conversation for
them and could also foster intergenerational interaction. We also
wanted to discuss with them the most important factors to take
into account when designing intergenerational games to see if
they agreed with those mentioned in the literature.
Therefore, in the next experience, we decided to shorten
the play experience and to add a design factors brainstorming
workshop [34]. The four aspects that emerged as important in
order to design successful intergenerational gaming experiences
were as follows.
1) The game should allow both children and grandparents to
have fun.
2) It has to be useful for something, and above all, so that
children and grandparents are left wanting to spend more
time together, playing.
3) The challenge that the game proposes has to be achievable
together and must be as easy for the grandchildren as it is
for the grandparents.
 160
TABLE I
FACTORS WHEN DESIGNING INTERGENERATIONAL DIGITAL GAMES
4) Both children and grandparents should be able to have
control of what happens in the game, without the game
requiring personal resources that favor one or the other.
All these experiences highlighted the necessity of promot-
ing common spaces to share experiences, foster dialogue be-
tween generations, and overcome prejudices between gener-
ations showing different roles and abilities. Moreover, they
allowed us not only to fine-tune the design recommendations
found in the literature (see the next subsection) but also to
address the challenge of assessing the intergenerational rela-
tionships that arose during the sessions (see Section IV).
C. Intergenerational Design Factors
From our previous experiences and the factors and findings
taken from the literature (especially those of De la Hera et al. [3]),
we created a set of design considerations (see Table I). These
factors were considered when we addressed the design of an
intergenerational online game as explained in Section V.
IV. ASSESSING INTERGENERATIONAL EXPERIENCES
As stated in Section II, works in the literature make use of
general tools to assess the intergenerational gaming experience.
However, we considered that more precise measurements were
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
needed, as recommended by Ajzen, author of the theory of
planned action [35], a theory of great relevance for precise
attitudinal measurements, especially in the fields of health and
education. This is why we decided not to use the existing general
tools but to address what Ajzen calls TACT (Target, Action,
Context, and Time) as the axis to guide the development of
a tool [36]. Thus, we have developed the following specific
tools to support the assessment of the intergenerational gaming
experience.
1) Intergenerational acceptance questionnaire (IGA-Q)
2) Intergenerational game experience questionnaire (IGE-Q)
3) Observation sheet for video analysis (OS) and a guide for
the group interview after the game experience.
These tools support qualitative and quantitative assessment
of the intergenerational experience. In Table II, the relation-
ships between dimensions, categories, and assessment tools are
shown.
A. Intergenerational Acceptance Questionnaire
The IGA-Q is a self-administered validated questionnaire
(pending publication) designed to measure the acceptance to-
ward playing this type of intergenerational game, with Cron-
bach’s alpha of 0.907. It is a pre- and postexperience question-
naire intended to be filled in separately by the children and
the adults. The questionnaire is composed of six items in the
form of a 7-value Likert scale that analyzes three variables:
Perceived behavioral control (PC), attitudes toward use (AU),
and subjective norm (SN). When analyzing the PC variable, the
ease of the game is being assessed. The AU variable assesses
the usefulness and degree of fun. The SN variable addresses
what the player believes that other people who are important to
him/her will think of the fact of he/she playing this game [35],
[36].
B. Intergenerational Experience Questionnaire
This self-administered questionnaire, to be completed by the
participants after the online intergenerational experience, aims to
obtain their perception and assessment of the game experience.
As can be seen in Table III, it is made up of seven questions with
a 7-value Likert scale (I1 to I7), two of which ask for clarification
of the value (I6,I7), and eight open questions (I8–I15). The aim
of the questions is to obtain the participants’ perception of the
experience in six categories belonging to four of the dimensions
proposed.
The first two categories focus on the importance of the game in
terms of reducing the intergenerational gap, generating greater
knowledge, as well as changes in the way of perceiving the other
generation. The category of teamwork is relevant as it is both an
end and a means of this game. Sharing doubts, needs, difficulties,
etc., are key elements for teamwork to be possible.
Categories four and six reflect participants’ assessment of
the experience of the game. The fifth category explores the
confidence generated by the game and the possibility of the game
being used by older adults who are not used to the Internet, as
research indicates that previous experience [37] can generate
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE 161

TABLE II TABLE III

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS, CATEGORIES, AND ASSESSMENTS INTERGENERATIONAL GAME EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
TOOLS

confidence and/or habits in the use of technology, which are key

to participation in this type of experience.

C. Observation Sheet for Video Analysis

Since it was very important to collect data on how the in-
tergenerational interaction developed in the process itself, an
observation grid for video analysis was generated to analyze the
last three dimensions (problem-solving strategies, emotions and
satisfaction, and value and feasibility of the online experience)
and changes in the perception of the other generation (RQ2).
The following items (see Table IV) have been developed using
different verification criteria, along the same lines as the recom-
mendations for qualitative research that can be found in [38].
1) Clarifying the research’s rationale and establishing a con-
nection with the literature, searching models that provide
a base for the sense and propriety of what it is going to be
observed.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 162 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024

TABLE IV 2) Judge triangulation: a minimum of three judges have taken

OBSERVATION SHEET
part in the development of the items to be observed as well
as in the observation itself.
3) Identifying and establishing patterns: patterns have been
connected with data and categories that emerged from
the observation and that were confirmed because of their
repetition during the different game experiences.
The model of Rahim and Bonoma [39] has been used to
analyze the Styles in conflict category. The model proposes five
styles according to the possible combinations derived from two
basic orientations: orienting toward satisfying self-interest and
orienting toward satisfying the interest of others. The five styles
are characterized as follows.
Integrating: Characterized by the person maintaining a high
interest in his or her own interests and those of others. It is
a style that implies openness, exchange of information, and
identification of the differences between each position. It is
defined as a “win–win” approach.
Obliging: Characterized by the person having a low interest in
his or her own interests and a high interest in those of others. It is
a style that focuses on finding commonalities, ignoring existing
differences and involves self-sacrifice.
Dominating: Characterized by the fact that the person main-
tains a high interest in his or her own interests and a low interest
in those of others. It is oriented toward ignoring the needs of the
“opponent” in order to win and is only concerned with his or her
own goal. It is defined as a “win–lose” approach.
Avoiding: Characterized by the person maintaining a low
interest in his or her own interests and a low interest in those
of others. The person is in withdrawal from a conflict, and in
some cases, this approach is used by the person who tries to
postpone the conflict, thinking that it will eventually be solved.
Compromising: Characterized by the person maintaining an
intermediate interest in his or her own interests and those of
others. A mutually acceptable solution is sought for both parties,
with the understanding that both must “give up” something to
reach an agreement.
An observation sheet was used for each family. Items were
rated for each family member (either grandchild or grandparent)
in adjacent columns. Each item was rated with a number from
1 to 5 (1-Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Sometimes, 4-Usually, 5-Always)
plus an observation note (Who or whom? How does he/she do
it?).
Observations should be complemented with a group interview
after the intergenerational experience. The interview should be in
line with the observation categories and should made it possible
to delve into the meaning of the experience. Questions should
be asked about the dynamics related to the way of solving the
problems that may have arisen during the game (how did we
solve the difficulties that arose, did we feel supported, etc.) and
about aspects that had surprised them about the other generation.
The participants should also be asked about how they felt during
the course of the game. Finally, an open space has to be left
for them to comment on any aspect of the intergenerational
experience.
All these tools have been applied to assess an online experi-
ence detailed in the next section.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
Fig. 1. Empty garden and elements to add.
V. ONLINE INTERGENERATIONAL GAME EXPERIENCE
During the firsts months’ of the pandemic, we distributed a
survey among families. Grandparents claimed that they were
able to talk to their grandchildren often but they missed the pos-
sibility of sharing time and activities with them and of engaging
in longer chats. So, we decided to design an intergenerational
storytelling game to be played online.
Intergenerational storytelling has been recognized as a pow-
erful method to engage children and older adults in a common
activity that contributes to children’s development [40] and older
adults’ wellbeing [41], promotes individual and family identity
[42], and fosters intergenerational relationships [43]. Current
intergenerational storytelling systems support digital (texts, im-
ages, video, music, and audios) storytelling [44], augmented
reality [45], and even tangible media [46]. In most of the works,
the older adults (mostly grandparents) take the role of narrators
and children (mostly grandchildren) the role of the audience. In
spite of the positive outcomes of that type of experience, children
generally assume a quite passive role. Multimodality may lead
to a more active participation of children [47]. However, as we
were restricted to the online context and we wanted to foster
and analyze intergenerational dynamics, we decided to break
traditional storytelling roles and engage both children and older
adults in building the stories.
The storytelling game and the online playing sessions carried
out with grandparents and grandchildren are explained in the
following.
A. Garden of our Dreams Storytelling Game
The game has been designed to be played online by up to four
teams, each team formed by a family (composed of grandparents
and grandchildren). The objective of the online game is to build
the “Garden of our Dreams”: at the beginning of the game, an
empty garden is presented to the players as well as different
elements that can be placed in it (see Fig. 1). To buy those
elements, the teams have to get points. To do this, the teams
have to think of a story and tell it to the other teams that have to
guess if it is real or invented and to which emotion it is related.
The game has been carefully designed following the intergen-
erational design factors presented in Table I. In spite of being
played with a computer, we wanted to avoid a situation where the
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
163
Fig. 2. Stories generation interface. Top: dice and the summary. Bottom:
categories.
game itself could generate difficulty and rejection, especially in
the older adults. Therefore, we looked for a game that could
evoke the dynamics of card games and dice, as something
familiar to everyone (F2). Cards are used to show the six different
story categories (movies, parties, holidays, anecdotes, sports,
family) and their six different subtopics. Three dice have to be
rolled: the first to decide the category and the topic, the second to
decide if the story is real or invented, and the third to select one
of six emotions, the well-known Ekman’s universal emotions
[48]: joy, anger, fear, disgust, surprise, and sadness. A summary
showing the characteristics of the story which players have to
think about is shown (see Fig. 2). The interface designed is
simple enough so that it can be manipulated by grandparents
and small grandchildren (F5, F7).
Each team rolls the dice in their own separate room and they
are given a time (5 min) to make up a family story. This part, the
creation of a story that can be real or invented, known by all or
not, is the core of the game (F4). This part is fun (F10), stimulates
creativity, and is useful, as it promotes family communication
(F11) and knowing each other better (F8). Once the time is up,
one family member (a different player for each turn) has to tell
the story, in the common room, to the other families. The story
should be told with the intention of provoking the intended emo-
tion, it is forbidden to name the word that designates the emotion
in the story itself. Telling stories is loved by both older adults and
children and is a challenge that can be achieved individually (F3),
in which both groups may feel equally comfortable (F1) and in
which both groups can work together (F3). Besides creativity, the
game incorporates a certain degree of mystery as every family
has to guess whether the stories told by the other teams are
true or invented and what kind of emotions were behind them
(F8). The game has been structured in short rounds that can
be played one after another and ended when the players wish
(F6). Although initially the game could seem competitive, the
final aim of the game (building the garden) can only be achieved
through the collaboration of all the teams so that every player
will consider the result as an achievement (F9). The final part
of the game is the purchase of elements for the garden. Each
 164
TABLE V
WORKSHOPS PARTICIPANTS’
team in turns chooses one thing they would like to include
and buys it with their points. To avoid frustration for some
of the teams that have not achieved many points, the scoring
system is designed so that all participating teams can obtain
some of the rewards individually. To get the best elements, such
as the pool, participating teams must collaborate. Every time
they buy an element, they can switch to the garden to see it
added. The objective of this step is to foster intergenerational
communication between all team members and collaboration
between all participants since the reward is common. At the end
of the game, each participant can print the result of the “Garden
of Dreams” as a prize and souvenir of their participation in the
activity.
B. Online Gaming Sessions
Four play sessions (workshops) were held: one pilot session
in March and three sessions in June 2021. For the recruiting, we
first contacted the families that had already participated in other
of our research activities. Other families were also contacted
through “snowball” or accidental sampling [49], as they were
people known to the members of the research groups and these
people suggested other people known to them. We wanted
the participation of three or four families for each session,
and for each family, one or two grandparents and one or two
grandchildren participated. All the participants had to be able to
connect from their houses with their own devices, preferably
computers. A total of 11 families participated, 3 families in
the pilot experience and 2 or 3 families in each of the other
three workshops (see Table V). Each family consisted of at least
one grandparent and one grandchild; although in most cases,
there was either more than one grandchild or more than one
grandparent, so the teams were usually made up of at least three
members. Grandparents ranged in age from 51 to 81 years old.
Gender parity was sought, with 53.8% being women and 46.2%
men (seven women and six men), most of them being over 75
years of age. In total, 13 grandchildren, 11 granddaughters, and
2 grandsons, aged between 6 and 14 years, participated.
The procedure consisted of three stages: invitation (with
pretests), online sessions, and closure (with post-tests).
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
Fig. 3. Getting to know each other at the beginning of the workshop:
researchers (triangles), grandparents (squares), and grandchildren (circles).
First, we sent an invitation (by e-mail) to all the older adults
and to the children’s guardians explaining what the activity
consisted of, what digital media they needed to participate, and
the objectives of the research. We also sent them the informed
consent, the link to an online version of IGA-Q (pre-test), and
a manual on how to connect to the session. In addition to the
manual, the families were offered a session beforehand to test
the connections and/or the use of the videoconferencing tool.
Only a couple of families (the grandparents) made use of it.
Older adults were also asked to fill in a questionnaire about
their digital habits. We found out that all of them connected
several times a week or every day to the Internet, as well as
having established online connections with family or friends;
however, only four of them used the computer to play, on a
regular basis.
The game sessions lasted around 90 min. First, the researcher
in charge, who acted as the game mediator, presented the
game and introduced the players (see Fig. 3). The mediator
was in charge of directing the dynamics of the game and
controlling remote communication between participants. She
had the support of other researchers (at least one per family)
that supported the families with the technology and during
the storytelling phases in which the families created the sto-
ries (see Table VI). The researchers were also in charge of
observing the interaction among players and of video recording
the experience.
Regarding the videoconferencing tool used, after a first pilot
with Google Meet it was decided to use Zoom in the following
sessions. This was due to the complexity within Meet of manag-
ing separate rooms for the families (so that they could think and
discuss their stories) in addition to the common game room (to
tell the stories, buy the elements …). In Meet, the users have to
move themselves between the rooms, whereas in Zoom, it is the
mediator who manages this, freeing the participants from this
task. At the end of the session, players filled in a questionnaire
about their game experience and a short group interview took
place.
After the sessions, a closure e-mail was sent to all participants,
thanking them for their participation and asking them to fill in
the IGA-Q (post-test).
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
TABLE VI
EXAMPLES OF STORIES CREATED BY THE FAMILIES
TABLE VII
PRETEST AND POSTTEST MEANS FOR EACH IGA-Q VARIABLE
VI. ASSESSMENT
The video recordings (both from the shared room and the
families’ rooms) were transcribed and viewed independently by
the researchers in order to be able to categorize each observation
in the different areas of observation. After the debriefing meeting
with all the team members and the analysis of all the videos, the
interviews, and the questionnaires, the results were structured
according to the dimensions referred to in Table II. For each
of the dimensions, the categories are discussed with a focus on
differences between generations and gender, if applicable.
A. Technological Acceptance (RQ1)
The questionnaire was filled in by nine boys/girls and six
older adults before and after playing. Table VII lists the prepost
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
165
Fig. 4. Comparison of the intergenerational experience by both generations.
values for each of the variables analyzed: PC, AU, and SN.
The first thing that stands out is that, in general, grandchildren
score higher than grandparents, with overall IGA-Q scores of 6.2
(pre) and 6.6 (post), respectively, in the case of grandchildren,
compared to 5.3 and 6 in the case of grandparents.
It is important to note that the score of the posttests, after
having lived the experience of the game, is better than that of
the pretests in all the questions except one for both age groups.
In question 6 for grandchildren, the posttest score equals the
pretest one: it corresponds to the variable SN, which asks about
the possibility of telling their experience of playing with other
generations to other people who are references for them.
It can be concluded, in general and with the limitations of the
few cases involved, that the experience of playing improved the
IGA-Q test ratings and, therefore, the acceptance toward playing
this type of intergenerational game.
B. Impact on Intergenerational Relationships (RQ2)
To analyze the results related to intergenerational relation-
ships, two categories are considered: the improvement of inter-
generational interaction and relationships, as well as changes in
intergenerational perception.
1) Improving Intergenerational Interaction and Relation-
ships: Both generations (see Fig. 4) have perceived that the
intergenerational game experience has facilitated a stronger rela-
tionship with the other generation (item 4, Table III). They also
recognize its potential to favor relationships (item 3) between
generations. The fact of being able to learn new expressions used
by the other generation (item 5) is less relevant, although in three
cases both grandchildren and older adults give this a maximum
valuation, which could indicate different levels of knowledge in
the family relationship.
2) Changes in Intergenerational Perception: In terms of
changes in intergenerational perception, it is worth noting that
playing intergenerationally has uncovered new aspects between
generations (item 6, contrasted in the group interview), although
this is not seen as a major change by all participants. Thus, 61.5%
 166
of the children said that playing intergenerationally had led them
to discover new aspects of their grandfather/grandmother. The
answers were structured in the following three categories.
1) Life experiences of their grandparents that they did not
know: “One day the ball flew away from him on the
beach.”
2) Skills of their grandparents hitherto unknown to them:
“That she is very good at explaining and making up
stories,” “I have discovered that my grandmother likes
tennis.”
3) Attitudes of their grandparents: “that she knows how to
control situations” or “that she wants everyone to partici-
pate.”
On the Other hand, Grandfathers and Grandmothers Have
discovered the following.
1) Skills that they are surprised that their grandchildren have:
“ability to express themselves, inventiveness, imagina-
tion,” “self-confidence, assertiveness, ability and agility
in handling the computer, innocence.”
2) Certain attitudes of their grandchildren and/or grand-
daughters: “A bit embarrassing,” “more confidence,”
“The enthusiasm to play with the grandparents and that
they do not hesitate to help us with things we do not know
or do not know about.”
C. Problem-Solving Strategies (RQ3)
Three categories are considered: Support interactions (SI),
teamwork, and styles in conflict.
1) Support Interactions: Regarding the SI throughout the
game, a different attitude between generations was observed
as well as differences between grandfathers and grandmothers
during the game dynamics.
As for the differences between generations, in the case of
grandfathers and grandmothers, there is a preference in both
genders (90.9%) to interact through questions that help their
grandsons and granddaughters to think. Their aim is to clarify
themselves and contribute new ideas (see SI4 in Table V): “Do
you know what this story is about,” “Do you like the grandfa-
ther’s story?” “Do you tell it?” “Do you remember?” “Who
rolls,” “And what emotion can you have there?” “Who did it
happen to?” “What do you think?” “What do you want?” “What
are you making up?” In addition, 54.5% also use statements to
indicate, explain, and clarify ideas (SI3): “Some story based on
something that has happened but that …,” “It has to be made up,”
“They won’t believe it,” “Sadness because I can’t take part,”
“Well, I think sadness, if it’s real, he must have felt sad, because
he’s such a fan of Nadal,” “It’s clear that it’s a lie,” “But if you
say that we were all very sad, you show it’s sadness.”
These statements are also the ones used by the children who
participated in the game. In fact, it is the only subcategory
(SI3) that they use almost always (69.2%), that is, helping their
grandfathers and grandmothers by using statements to explain,
indicate, and clarify ideas: “It is clear that it is a lie,” “But if
you say that we all got very sad it will be noticed that it is out of
sadness,” “It has to be that it could happen in real life for them
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
to think it is true,” “Yes, it’s real, because the unicorn used to
be there and now it’s gone.”
On the other hand, it is relevant to note that while grandfathers
do not have a marked preference for expressing verbal expres-
sions of support, encouragement, and/or reinforcement (SI1),
50% of the participating grandmothers express this attitude by
using affectionate expressions such as “We are all doing very
well” or by giving instructions with reinforcement “Come on,
x, darling!” It should also be noted that when grandparents want
to encourage, they do so with expressions related more to the
result: “very good,” “great.”
Finally, it should be noted that there is no abundance of
nonverbal expressions of support and encouragement (SI2),
although in the two cases in which this has been a habitually
expressed attitude, it was the women who smiled, nodded, and
accompanied verbal support with nonverbal gestures. This can
be a consequence of the online settings. Nor do grandmothers
usually use commands in their interaction (SI5), only in some
cases to name another person to tell the story: “You tell that one,
hey!” “Your grandmother tells that one,” “But you make it up
yourself.”
2) Teamwork: Regarding the way of working together in the
game (Item 8, Table IV), five of the grandchildren value the
fact that they have worked well as a team. Another six highlight
the collaborative, participative, and equitable work with their
grandfathers and grandmothers, as well as their initiative when
there were no ideas and and their focus on how to meet the needs
of others.
On the other hand, all the grandparents point out that they
have worked very well or well with them. But if we analyze
what needs they attended to, we observe that the caring role
appears both in a positive and negative sense: the grandparent
or grandmother attending to the others so that they do not argue
“that my grandchildren do not argue among themselves” or that
they are the protagonists of the situation “I have tried to give
them the initiative and I have respected their proposals”; but
also reflecting regret at not being able to exercise this caring role
because they had no resources in this online playing situation:
“but I would like to feel more useful.”
With regard to the way in which the children have helped their
team, three categories stand out: Proposing ideas (6 children),
collaborating (2 children): “I helped my grandmother to say that
word that didn’t come out when it was her turn to describe the
story” and generating comfort and giving confidence (2 chil-
dren): “ …with confidence.”
In the case of the grandparents, two categories stand out. In
one the protagonism is shared with the grandchildren, while
in the other, they perpetuate the adult role in the dynamics
of the game. Thus, six of them focus on the importance of
participating, listening, and dialogue in order to seek agreements
among all of the team: “the three of us agreeing,” and three others
highlight their role of giving support to facilitate the grandchild’s
protagonism: “supporting x so that he/she has protagonism,”
“When I didn’t agree with them I suggested a doubt.”
Concerning teamwork (item 9), all the grandfathers and
grandmothers highlight the atmosphere generated in the dynam-
ics of the game among all players, a climate that gives security
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
TABLE VIII
RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGES) OF THE PROBLEM SOLUTION CATEGORY
and confidence: “motivation, joy, feeling good and safe …,”
“confidence in others,” “trust in others.”
For their part, the children highlighted collaboration, creativ-
ity, as well as the importance of thinking about everyone: “They
think about everyone and not just themselves.” One of them also
highlighted the support received: “if I didn’t understand a word,
they explained it to me,” and another the strength of the group
in not giving up: “we didn’t give up.”
3) Styles in Conflict: The five problem-solving styles pro-
posed by the Rahim and Bonoma Model, relating the orientation
to one’s own interests and the interests of others, allow for an
analysis of the problem-solving interactions during the intergen-
erational game.
It is worth highlighting (see Table VIII) the preference of
grandmothers and grandfathers for the styles of integrating (PS4)
and obliging (PS5), as well as the absence, at least as an habitual
pattern, of the dominating (PS2), avoiding (PS3), and compro-
mising (PS6) styles. The most frequently style observed (72.7%)
is integrating (PS4): “Come on, the seesaw, and some swings? To
take x.” Grandparents tend to think of their whole group, trying
to make everyone feel at ease, even family members who have
not participated in the game. The second style (54.5%) shown
is that of obliging (PS5), adapting to what their grandchildren
propose, even if it is not their choice: “Come on, we’ll take the
one you said,” “I was going to put 25.”
It is relevant to note that in the case of grandsons and grand-
daughters, no preferred style is observed in general. Although
they give their opinion, they do not defend or debate it, so they
adapt (dominating, PS2 and obliging, PS5). However, they do not
take into account the opinion of the rest in their decision-making
(integrating, PS4) except for two cases. On the other hand, they
are not inhibited (avoiding, PS3) but they do not take the ini-
tiative to find a solution that satisfies everyone (compromising,
PS6).
As for leadership in solving the challenges of the game (PS1),
there is a relevant difference between genders. While all the
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
167
men prefer to ask questions to the game coordinator, all the
grandmothers coordinate and lead the game when the situation
requires it or out of personal necessity. They are not inhibited
in the face of difficulties. As for the children, there are very
few indications that they show leadership in solving the game,
although when this has occurred it has been one of the girls
participating.
D. Emotions and Satisfaction (RQ4)
We analyze here two categories: expression of emotions and
reasons for satisfaction.
1) Expression of Emotions During the Process of the Game:
We can speak of a predominant emotion that has manifested
itself in the process of the development of the game. This feeling
is joy, relevant in all groups, sessions, and generations. In the
case of grandmothers and grandfathers, there was no anger, fear,
shame, or boredom emotions that in some cases were manifested
in the grandsons and granddaughters.
In terms of gender analysis, the grandmothers sometimes
expressed surprise, “Come on! I can’t believe it!” when they
realized that a story was not as they had thought. On the other
hand, sadness has emerged, in the case of the older adults, on
occasions when the dice suggested it (sad party …), or when
the remembered event generated sadness (because it was a sad
real family event) and affected the family’s mood. However, as
confirmed in the interview, dealing with sensitive issues between
grandparents and grandchildren also had positive effects on
intrafamily life, generating more communication.
2) Reasons for Satisfaction With Intergenerational Play: As
for what they liked most in the intergenerational analysis, it can
be seen that most grandparents and grandchildren emphasize the
fact of being able to share. When the grandchildren were asked
what they liked most, five of them said everything (the game
and playing with their grandparents): “Everything because both
the game and playing with my grandmother was a lot of fun.”
Another five emphasized the possibility of sharing with their
grandparents, as well as with other people: “Having spent more
time with my grandmother and meeting new people.” In another
two cases, they emphasized the fact of playing and the stories
that were created.
For their part, grandparents open their perspective by in-
cluding all the people who have participated in the game and
not only their grandchildren. Thus, five of them emphasize the
possibility of sharing with their grandchildren as well as with
other people: “Exchanging ideas and sharing experience with
others,” “Being able to relate to my granddaughter and the rest
of the people without a mask, without fear of contagion due to the
Covid-19 issue.” Two others emphasize the novelty “That I can
do something new …different.” The positive dynamism of the
game itself is also reflected: “the (apparent) simplicity, creativ-
ity, positivity, and commitment” and the attitude of commitment
to the experience by all the participants in the workshop: “The
willingness of all.”
Only five children pointed out some aspect that they did not
like. Three of them mentioned aspects of the game mechanics, as
they would have liked to play more because they had few points
 168
Fig. 5. Comparison of personal competence and transferability between both
generations.
to buy at the end of the game. One of them said that he did not
like the discussions and another one mentioned the technical
difficulties due to connection problems.
As for proposals for improvement, the majority of both gen-
erations said that they liked the game as it is: “No, I really
liked the game and I would leave it like this.” The grandparents
put forward two proposals that have to do with the structure of
the game: changing some terms that could create confusion, and
adding some other emotion, such as embarrassment. In addition,
the children made proposals to extend the resources of the game:
to create avatars, to have more emotions, and actions to tell
stories. Another raised the need for more time to play.
E. Feasibility and Differential Value of an Online
Intergenerational Online Activity (RQ5)
This last analysis highlights the importance of being able to
use online environments, the value they confer, as well as their
feasibility.
1) Perception of Personal Competence and Ease of Play:
Both generations consider (see Fig. 5) that playing the inter-
generational game has improved their confidence in using the
Internet (item 1 in Table III). On the other hand, they also
highlight its potential for intergenerational transferability, as
they consider that it could be played by other people even with
poor online or Internet habits (item 2).
2) Technology-Related Observations: In the group inter-
view, grandparents expressed the concern they had about playing
online with their grandchildren; they had fear of experiencing
technological problems that they did not know how to solve.
Despite having downplayed the possibility of technological
problems causing difficulties, there were difficulties in two cases
(grandfather and granddaughter) that required a lot of support.
In fact, 54.54% of the older adults and 7.69% of the children
sometimes had difficulties using the technology (with the mi-
crophone, camera, or screen sharing), which slowed down the
development of the game. The grandsons and granddaughters,
in general, solved technological problems earlier than their
grandfathers or grandmothers, and if there were more than one
playing in the same team, they supported each other. In this
sense, 90.9% of the grandparents needed technological support
(half of them always, and half of them sometimes), compared
to 15.3% of the grandchildren. The older adults received help
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
both from their grandchildren and from the game facilitators.
In terms of interaction with game elements (use of the dice),
it was necessary to invite grandparents to roll the dice, as they
wanted their grandchildren to do it and to involve them in the
game. In the case of the grandchildren, 38.46% always wanted
to roll it, the same proportion wanted to share it, and the rest had
no clear pattern of behavior. Besides, the children did not use
technological terminology, and only 27.27% of the adults did so
sometimes. In this area, no gender differences are observed in
either generation.
3) Differential Value of Playing an Intergenerational Game:
According to the grandparents, the difference between this game
and the usual way of playing lies in key elements that make up
three categories: a different online modality “computer games
are usually very different, repetitive, aggressive, and passive”;
the search for shared work: “Because when we are alone we
go our own way”; and that it is a safe interaction environment
in a pandemic situation: “I have played with people I did
not know previously, I have been able to connect with them
and have a good time, and … in this pandemic stage, I have
appreciated a ‘safe environment’ of interaction, where I could
concentrate on the game, without worrying about whether or
not my companions were more or less than 5 ft away or whether
or not the room would be well ventilated ….”
The children said that the difference between this game and
the usual way of playing lies in two key elements, the online
mode (five children): “We have not been together per se, we
have been together, but through the laptop/computer,” and that
there were more people (three children): “because there were
new families.” Only two of them said that it was not different or
not much different from other experiences.
VII. DISCUSSION: CHALLENGES AND VALUES IN ONLINE
INTERGENERATIONAL EXPERIENCES
Several challenges have to be faced to carry out such experi-
ences.
A. Challenges in Collecting Participants
It was difficult to find grandparents to participate in the
experience. The devices used in the experiences were one of the
reasons: in the pilot, we realized that using mobiles and tablets
for videoconferencing was quite challenging for the older adults,
so we decided to use personal computers and laptops, which are
not so widespread. Moreover, people who had the devices had
poor Internet connections: some of them were in villages or, as
it was during the pandemic lockdown, they were unable to go
to public places or to relatives with better Internet connections.
Even those who had both devices and connections were reluctant
to play digital games with their grandchildren: they thought they
would not be able to do so as they struggled to use technology,
in particular videoconferencing resources. The acceptance of
new devices and/or resources by older adults is sometimes a
question of adaptation as they have to incorporate them into their
lives [49]. Moreover, the lack of familiarity with technology
resources influences their attitude toward their use [50]. This
is why previous learning of the devices and applications is so
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
important [1], [3], [28]. In this regard, we have realized that it
is essential to enroll older participants in some previous session
to make sure they will feel confident during the game and that
they know what they are going to do in advance. On the other
hand, the possibility of playing with their grandchildren seems
to be a strong motivation for those who participated. This also
aligns with the findings of Mates [50] who states that almost
half of older adults begin to use technology because their family
members encourage them. After the experience, we were happy
to detect, in the GEQs, that older adult participants felt more
confident and that they thought that other people of their age
without much Internet experience would be able to participate.
This is why we affirm that the context of intergenerational play
is a good framework for older adults to learn to use technology.
Moreover, we think that if senior people played this kind of
online game more often, they would have more confidence and
a better attitude to new technologies [51]. In this sense, it is
relevant that in the result of perceived control measured by
the IGA-Q test, the improvement in the posttest assessment is
significant in the group of older adults (see Table VII). Moreover,
during the talk after the play session, the older adults commented
that they were very proud of having been able to play online with
their grandchildren and that they would happily be involved
again in such experiences. Besides, their acceptance of such
games had increased after the experience (IGA-Q).
B. Challenges During the Sessions
In spite of our efforts in conducting a pilot session and offering
previous tests with grandparents, half of them still experienced
some technological issues during the play session with the cam-
era, the microphone, or to share the display. Again, a previous
training session is required even if participants think it is not
necessary. Above all, there is a need for easier videoconference
user interfaces adapted to all ages. In addition, it is important
to realize that moving HCI studies to online contexts requires
a certain amount of improvisation, as has been experienced by
other researchers [52].
C. Challenges Related to Symmetrical Interactions
This kind of game that includes a joint storytelling task
encourages both older adults and children to assume an active
and participative role [47]: both grandparents and grandchildren
interact in order to help, explain, and clarify ideas. Nevertheless,
during the experience, the grandparents’ caring role and obliging
style in conflict resolution are still often predominant. On the
other hand, when grandparents experience technical problems,
their grandchildren usually try to help them, taking the role of
masters and technology facilitators [53]. In terms of gender
differences, more coordination and leadership activity is ob-
served in grandmothers’ play, as well as greater use of verbal
and nonverbal expressions (not so frequent as in face-to-face
experiences) of support, encouragement, and/or reinforcement.
In spite of the all the previous challenges, positive and differ-
ential values emerge from the online experience and are aligned
with findings in other intergenerational experiences. Both gen-
erations found that the experience had made it easier for them
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
169
to relate with the other generation [11]. They also discovered
aspects/attitudes/experiences that they did not know about the
other generation [10]. Regarding emotions, the predominant in
the older adults was joy; during the experience, grandmothers
and grandfathers did not feel anger, fear, embarrassment, or
boredom. Both grandparents and grandchildren emphasized the
teamwork and the atmosphere generated [3] and valued the
fact of being able to share time and play with each other and
with other people. During the experience, grandparents tried
to achieve a safe and caring climate for their grandchildren
[54]. The core of the intergenerational game was storytelling,
an activity that has proved to bring benefits to both generations:
it encourages learning and overall development in children [40]
and promotes psychosocial wellbeing in older adults [41]. In
our proposal, the classical intergenerational storytelling activity
in which one generation (generally the older one) tells stories
to the other (generally the younger) has been changed into a
joint storytelling activity that leads to the exchange of family
stories and the joint creation of new ones. In this way, the
benefits of the activity increase as it promotes mutual knowledge,
intergenerational dialogue [55], and fight prejudices toward
older generations [56]. Finally, as the experience was carried
out during pandemic times, all participants valued the online
experience as a safe place to play together. However, beyond
the pandemic situation, such experiences can be very useful
for families who are geographically separated or with their
grandparents living in nursing homes. For these reasons, we
think it is worth the effort and that more experiences like this
should be promoted.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
This work started out from the necessity of transforming
colocated intergenerational gaming experiences into online ones
during the COVID-19 pandemic. From that necessity, we have
worked to obtain design guidelines to support the creation of
these experiences and specific tools to assess the degree of
acceptance by older adults, the intergenerational dynamics, and
the satisfaction and perceived value of the experience.
We have described here the intergenerational game we have
created, the online play sessions carried out, and the results
obtained from the application of the proposed assessment tools.
We hope that our findings will foster the design of shared
intergenerational play contexts that are known to be beneficial
for both age groups: children and older adults. In future, we aim
to continue with these experiences, exploring other issues such
as cultural differences, and the use of other technologies (social
robots) and contexts (nursing homes).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Mercé and Manel for their
help during the game sessions.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Zhang and D. Kaufman, “A review of intergenerational play for fa-
cilitating interactions and learning,” Gerontechnology, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 127–138, 2016, doi: 10.4017/gt.2016.14.3.013.00.
 170
[2] L. Costa and A. Veloso, “Being (grand) players: Review of digital
games and their potential to enhance intergenerational interactions,”
J. Intergenerational Relationships, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 43–59, 2016,
doi: 10.1080/15350770.2016.1138273.
[3] T. De la Hera, E. Loos, M. Simon, and J. Blom, “Benefits and factors
influencing the design of intergenerational digital games: A systematic
literature review,” Societies, vol. 7, 2017, Art. no. 18.
[4] T. Kolthoff, T. A. Spil, and H. Nguyen, “The adoption of a serious game
to foster interaction between the elderly and the youth,” in Proc. IEEE 7th
Int. Conf. Serious Games Appl. for Health, 2019, pp. 1–8.
[5] L. A. Whitlock, A. C. McLaughlin, and J. C. Allaire, “Individual differ-
ences in response to cognitive training: Using a multi-modal, attentionally
demanding game-based intervention for older adults,” Comput. Hum.
Behav., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1091–1096, 2012.
[6] J. C. Allaire, A. C. McLaughlin, A. Trujillo, L. A. Whitlock, L. LaPorte,
and M. Gandy, “Successful aging through digital games: Socioemotional
differences between older adult gamers and non-gamers,” Comput. Hum.
Behav., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1302–1306, 2013.
[7] V. V. Abeele and B. De Schutter, “Designing intergenerational play via
enactive interaction, competition and acceleration,” Pers. Ubiquitous Com-
put., vol. 14, pp. 425–433, 2010.
[8] A. Thai, D. Lowenstein, D. Ching, and D. Rejeski, “Game changer:
Investing in digital play to advance children’s learning and health,” in Proc.
Sesame Workshop, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
[9] S. Bredekamp and C. Copple, “Developmentally appropriate practice in
early childhood education,” in National Association for the Education of
Young Children. Washington, DC, USA: NEAYC, 1997.
[10] J. Harwood, Understanding Communication and Aging: Developing
Knowledge and Awareness. New Delhi, India: Sage, 2007.
[11] P. Uhlenberg, “Introduction: Why study age integration?,” Gerontologist,
vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 261–266, 2000.
[12] A. Mahmud, O. Mubin, S. Shahid, and J. B. Martens, “Designing and
evaluating the tabletop game experience for senior citizens,” in Proc.
5th Nordic Conf. Hum.-Comput. Interaction, Building Bridges, 2008,
pp. 403–406.
[13] S. Baldassarri, F. J. Perales, E. Cerezo, F. Gutiérrez, and C. González,
“PERGAMEX: Pervasive gaming experiences for @ll,” in Proc. 14th
Annu. Int. Conf. Educ. New Learn. Technol., 2022, Paper 10502.
[14] A. A. E.Cerezo, T. Coma, J. Gallardo, and M. Garrido, “Working attention,
planning and social skills through pervasive games in interactive spaces,”
IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 119–136, Feb. 2022.
[15] E. Cerezo and A. C. Blasco-Serrano, “The space journey game: An inter-
generational pervasive experience,” in Proc. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput.
Syst., 2019, Paper 36102.
[16] D. Muñoz, B. Ploderer, and M. Brereton, “Position exchange workshops:
A method to design for each other in families,” in Proc. CHI Conf. Hum.
Factors Comput. Syst., 2019, pp. 1–14.
[17] E. Loos, T. De La. Hera, M. Simons, and D. Gevers, “Setting up and
conducting the co-design of an intergenerational digital game: A state-of-
the-art literature review,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Hum.-Comput. Interaction,
2019, pp. 56–69.
[18] M. Rice, Y. L. Cheong, J. Ng, P. H. Chua, and Y. L. Theng, “Co-creating
games through intergenerational design workshops,” in Proc. Designing
Interactive Syst. Conf., 2012, pp. 368–377.
[19] A. Mahmud, O. Mubin, S. Shahid, and J. B. Martens, “Designing social
games for children and older adults: Two related case studies,” Entertain-
ment Comput., vol. 1, no. 3/4, pp. 147–156, 2010.
[20] E. T. Khoo, A. D. Cheok, T. H. D. Nguyen, and Z. Pan, “Age invaders:
Social and physical inter-generational mixed reality family entertainment,”
Virtual Reality, vol. 12, pp. 3–16, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10055-008-0083-0.
[21] M. Rice, L. J. Yau, J. Ong, M. Wan, and J. Ng., “Intergenerational game-
play: Evaluating social interaction between younger and older players,” in
Proc. Extended Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2012, pp. 2333–2338,
doi: 10.1145/2212776.2223798.
[22] M. Lankes, J. Hagler, F. Gattringer, B. Stiglbauer, M. Ruehrlinger, and
C. Holzmann, “Cosmonauts in retrospect: The game design process
of an intergenerational Co-located collaborative game,” in Proc. Annu.
Symp. Comput.-Hum. Interaction Play Companion, Extended Abstr., 2018,
pp. 221–234.
[23] F. Vetere, M. Nolan, and R. Raman, “Distributed hide-and-seek,” in
Proc. Australas. Comput.-Hum. Interaction Conf., 2006, pp. 325–328,
doi: 10.1145/1228175.1228235.
[24] I. Carlsson, J. Choi, C. Pearce, and G. Smith, “Designing eBee: A reflection
on quilt-based game design,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Found. Digit. Games,
2017, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1145/3102071.3102102.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 17, 2024
[25] R. Rosenqvist, J. Boldsen, E. Papachristos, and T. Merritt, “MeteorQuest
- Bringing families together through proxemics play in a mobile social
game,” in Proc. Annu. Symp. Comput.-Hum. Interaction Play, 2018,
pp. 439–450.
[26] K. Seaborn, N. Lee, M. Narazani, and A. Hiyama, “Intergenerational
shared action games for promoting empathy between Japanese youth and
elders,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Affect. Comput. Intell. Interaction, 2019,
pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/ACII.2019.8925483.
[27] L. Reis, K. Mercer, and J. Boger, “Technologies for fostering intergen-
erational connectivity and relationships: Scoping review and emergent
concepts,” Technol. Soc., vol. 64, 2021, Art. no. 101494.
[28] C. Chiong, “Can video games promote intergenerational play and literacy
learning,” Report From Res. and Design Workshop, New York, NY, USA,
2009.
[29] C. Bonillo, J. Marco, and E. Cerezo, “Developing pervasive games in
interactive spaces: The JUGUEMOS toolkit,” Multimedia Tools Appl.,
vol. 78, no. 22, pp. 32261–32305, 2019.
[30] J. Marco, S. Baldassarri, and E. Cerezo, “NIKVision: Developing a tan-
gible application for and with children,” J. Univ. Comput. Sci., vol. 19,
no. 15, pp. 2266–2291, 2013.
[31] J. P. Das, “Brain-based approaches to the study of intelligence,” in Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press,
2018, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.101.
[32] Z. Amod, D. Heafield, and J. Seabi, “Assessing a remedial intervention
programme in developing the planning skills of grade 4 and 5 learn-
ers,” Int. J. Disabil., Develop. Educ., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 428–441, 2018,
doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406067.
[33] G. Chan, S. L. Tan, .K. F. T. Hew, B. G. Koh, L. S. Lim, and J. C.
Yong, “Knowledge for games, games for knowledge: Designing a digital
roll-and-move board game for a law of torts class,” Res. Pract. Technol.
Enhanced Learn., vol. 12, 2017, Art. no. 7, doi: 10.1186/s41039-016-
0045-1.
[34] F. Bacca et al., “Intergenerational playful experiences based on digital
games for interactive spaces,” in Proc. 5th EAI Int. Conf. Des., Learn.
Innov., 2020, pp. 101–119.
[35] I. Ajzen, “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior,” in
Action Control, J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer,
1985, pp. 11–39.
[36] I. Ajzen, “Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and method-
ological considerations,” Accessed: Dec. 11, 2022. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.readkong.com/page/constructing-a-tpb-questionnaire-
conceptual-and-3244936
[37] Q. Q. Wang and X. Sun, “Investigating gameplay intention of the elderly
using an extended technology acceptance model (ETAM),” Technol. Fore-
casting Social Change, vol. 107, pp. 59–68, 2016.
[38] J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research De-
sign: Choosing among Five Approaches. New York, NY, USA: Sage,
2016.
[39] A. Rahim and T. V. Bonoma, “Managing organizational conflict: A
model for diagnosis and intervention,” Psychol. Rep., vol. 44, no. 3,
pp. 1323–1344, 1979.
[40] K. M. Speaker, D. Taylor, and R. Kamen, “Storytelling: Enhancing lan-
guage acquisition in young children,” Education, vol. 125, no. 1, 2005,
Art. no. 3.
[41] B. C. Pecorini and E. Duplaa, “Narrative gerontology and digital story-
telling: What benefits for elders?,” MOJ Public Health, vol. 6, no. 6, 2017,
Art. no. 00192.
[42] J. K. K. B.Thompson, J. T. J.Soliz, A. Epp, and P. Schrodt, “Family
legacies constructing individual and family identity through intergener-
ational storytelling,” Narrative Inquiry, vol. 19. no. 1, pp. 106–134, 2009,
doi: 10.1075/ni.19.1.07tho.
[43] K. Flottemesch, “Learning through narratives: The impact of digital sto-
rytelling on intergenerational relationships,” Acad. Educ. Leadership J.,
vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 53–60, 2013.
[44] J. Hewson, C. Danbrook, and J. D. Sieppert, “Engaging post-secondary
students and older adults in an intergenerational digital course,” Contem-
porary Issues Educ. Res., vol. 8, pp. 135–142, 2015.
[45] C. Daffara, S. Brewer, A. Thoravi, B. Kumaravel, and B. Hartmann,
“Living paper: Authoring AR narratives across digital and tangible media,”
in Proc. Extended Abstr. CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2020,
pp. 1–10.
[46] T. Wallbaum, A. Matviienko, S. Ananthanarayan, T. Olsson, W. Heuten,
and S. C. J. Boll, “Supporting communication between grandparents and
grandchildren through tangible storytelling systems,” in Proc. ACM CHI
Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2018, pp. 1–12.
 CEREZO et al.: EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS THROUGH AN ONLINE STORYTELLING EXPERIENCE
[47] N. Boivin, “Co-participatory multimodal intergenerational storytelling:
Preschool children’s relationship with modality creating elder in-
clusion,” J. Early Childhood Lit., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1–26, 2021,
doi: 10.1177/14687984211012055.
[48] P. Ekman, “Basic emotions,” in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. New
York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1999, pp. 45–60.
[49] I. Etikan, S. A. Musa, and R. S. Alkassim, “Comparison of convenience
sampling and purposive sampling,” Amer. J. Theor. Appl. Statist., vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2016, doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
[50] B. T. Mates, “Seniors and computer technology,” Lib. Technol. Rep.,
vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 32–40, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://journals.ala.
org/index.php/ltr/article/view/4816
[51] A. Troncone, R. Saturno, M. Buonanno, L. Pugliese, C. V. G.Cordasco,
and A. Esposito, “Advanced assistive technologies for elderly peo-
ple: A psychological perspective on older users’ needs and prefer-
ences (Part B),” Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 18, pp. 29–44, 2021,
doi: 10.12700/APH.17.2.2020.2.10.
[52] K. J. Lee et al., “The show must go on: A conceptual model of conducting
synchronous participatory design with children online,” in Proc. CHI Conf.
Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., 2011, pp. 1–16.
[53] S. Freeman et al., “Intergenerational effects on the impacts of technology
use in later life: Insights from an international, multi-site study,” Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 16, 2020, Art. no. 5711.
[54] H. Davis, F. Vetere, M. Gibbs, and P. Francis, “Come play with me:
Designing technologies for intergenerational play,” Univ. Access Inf. Soc.,
vol. 11, pp. 17–29, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s10209-011-0230-3.
[55] M. Gualano, G. Voglino, F. Bert, R. Thomas, E. Camussi, and R. Siliquini,
“The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults:
A review,” Int. Psychogeriatrics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 451–468, 2018.
[56] D. Grefe, “Combating ageism with narrative and intergroup contact:
Possibilities of intergenerational connections,” Pastoral Psychol., vol. 60,
pp. 99–105, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11089-010-0280-0.
Eva Cerezo received the Ph.D. degree in computer
science from the University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza,
Spain, in 2002.
She is Full Professor with the School of Engi-
neering and Architecture, University of Zaragoza.
She leads the AffectiveLab, a research group that
focuses on affective multimodal human–computer
interaction, tangible tabletops, and virtual humans.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE JUIZ DE FORA. Downloaded on February 05,2024 at 22:50:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
171
Teresa Coma-Roselló received the degree in educa-
tional sciences with specialisation in social pedagogy
from the Universidad Autónoma of Barcelona, in
1992 and the Ph.D. degree in psychology and learning
from the University of Zaragoza, in 2016.
She is an Assistant Professor with Education De-
partment, University of Zaragoza. Her research in-
terests include social education, empathy, participa-
tion and teamwork, communication and performance
management, and inclusion.
Antonio Aguelo received the degree in educational
sciences with specialisation in social pedagogy from
the Universidad Autónoma of Barcelona, in 1992 and
the Ph.D. degree in Sociology from the University of
Zaragoza, in 2011.
He is an Assistant Professor with the Psychology
and Sociology Department, University of Zaragoza,
and a member of the AffectiveLab. His research in-
terests include competencies, teamwork, emotional
intelligence orientation, inclusion, and empathy.
Ana Cristina Blasco-Serrano received the Ph.D.
degree in education from the University of Zaragoza,
Zaragoza, Spain, in 2017.
She is Assistant Professor with the University of
Zaragoza and a member of the Ethnography Research
Group. Her research interests include technologies
for learning, educational guidance, and education for
citizenship.
María Ángeles Garrido received the Ph.D. degree
in psychology from the University of Zaragoza,
Zaragoza, Spain, in 1996.
She is an Associate Professor with the Psychology
and Sociology Department, University of Zaragoza.
A member of the group “Educaviva: Education and
psychological processes” she is interested in the
teaching–learning process (especially reading pro-
cesses).