ABSTRACT
As populations age at record rates, institutions must ready themselves to be more age-friendly. Institutions with an affiliated university-based retirement community (UBRC) are particularly poised to adopt the Age-Friendly University (AFU) campus concept. The partnership of Lasell College and Lasell Village is used to illustrate how AFU principles can be implemented to extend older adults’ access to various educational opportunities. Specially-designed efforts such as the Talk of Ages program provide intergenerational exchange to facilitate the reciprocal sharing of expertise between different-aged learners and mitigate negative age attitudes. Programs such as Faculty Fellows build capacity to support greater attention to aging education and extend intergenerational connections across the curriculum. Challenges inherent in leadership, awareness, classroom dynamics, and ageism are also explored alongside opportunities that an AFU approach brings in light of such challenges.
Notes
1. Although Lasell Village is one of a growing number of affiliated retirement communities, it is the only one to feature a formal individualized educational program. However, this format should not deter other UBRCs with different programming arrangements from joining the AFU initiative. The AFU initiative recognizes the diversity of educational environments and the principles have been developed to provide a range of opportunities for developing distinctive age-friendly practices and programs.
2. On the whole, residents more often opt to participate in on-site classes and intergenerational modules than intergenerational courses. Moreover, these courses are typically elective courses (rather than required or high demand courses) that are more able to accommodate a few resident participants. Thus, student enrollment has not been impacted by reserving seats for older learners.
3. A review of 58 studies found pedagogical interventions can improve attitudes toward aging and older adults (Chonody, Citation2015). However, not all studies show this effect, and existing studies may be limited in methodological ways that raise questions about confounding factors and underlying mechanisms (Lytle & Levy, Citation2017). Thus, more can be learned about the conditions under which positive versus negative outcomes result from intergenerational classroom engagement. This includes the focus or content of classroom activities. It may be speculated that topics that call attention to fears of aging (declining change), historical differences (“older” times that lacked modern technologies), or age group differences (“us” compared to “them”) may lead to negative personal age perceptions and group attitudes as opposed to topics that call for less age-specific references and focus on topics of more mutual concern and individual interest (e.g., the environment, social justice, art, culture, etc.).
4. The impracticality of 15-week-long classes for older adults might be taken to suggest that the semester system of many universities does not work for the schedules of older adults. As such, some may argue that they are not so uniquely positioned to offer educational programs to the same extent as establishments outside of the university. Scheduling issues are not new concerns in lifelong learning and continuing education programs, and institutions presently make use of a variety of alternative options including online courses (that offer flexibility), 1–2 credit courses (that meet for fewer hours), non-credit courses that meet once a week for 4–6 weeks (as in Osher Institute classes), weekend seminars, and more. The emerging age-diverse student population that now also includes (working) adults aged 25–45 will add to the need for institutions to offer different course formats with a range of scheduling options.
5. Faculty are given a $250 professional development stipend sponsored by the Office of Academic Affairs for participating in intergenerational courses and generating intergenerational modules.