A review of intergenerational workshop literature proposed by Rather than focusing on Generative AI (Chan et al., 2024), which is a very important and trending theme, or on online platforms that connect different generations (Balcerzak et al., 2017), the present study centers on an XR application as the theme for the intergenerational workshop, as XR has demonstrated strong potential for enhancing wellbeing (Aruanno and Garzotto, 2019; Rohrbach et al., 2019), cognitive stimulation (Wang and Zhang, 2024), and physical activity (Blomqvist et al., 2021). Therefore, this study highlights the potential application areas for XR that can be identified from storyboards co-designed by older adults and students.

Existing research on VR and video game intergenerational workshops has documented various outcomes, including reduced ageism among younger participants (Zou et al., 2024), improved intergenerational relationships (Wei et al., 2023), and enhanced creativity (Ng et al., 2025). Studies have also identified challenges such as uneven distribution of technical knowledge, role monopolization, and varying group dynamics (Cucinelli et al., 2018). While these findings are valuable, this paper addresses a gap in the literature by providing a replicable methodology for establishing technological intergenerational workshops. Despite a growing number of intergenerational co-design studies involving XR and other technologies, most work remains reflective and context-specific, offering insights and challenges from individual workshop series rather than a clear, standardized methodology for structuring intentional intergenerational XR workshops (Varella et al., 2022; Hagen et al., 2024). This absence of agreed–upon co–design methods in XR highlights the need for formalized processes that can support mutual benefits for older adults as well as future developers, and facilitate cross–generational knowledge exchange in XR design contexts.

Hence, one of the contributions of this study is a methodology for an intergenerational XR workshop. The workshop consists of of two stages: a pre-workshop session with students enrolled in a college program focused on game design and programming, aimed at introducing the goals, XR concepts, and their support role; followed by a main workshop session involving both students and older adults, as described in detail in Section 3. Throughout both stages, the process is informed by psychogerontological expertise to ensure age sensitive facilitation and meaningful intergenerational engagement. The aim is to sensitize and equip future developers to co-create XR applications with, and for, older adults, fostering inclusivity and relevance in design. Hence, unlike previous studies, our approach places future developers in a central role, supporting older adults in adopting emerging XR technologies while simultaneously gaining deeper insights into their needs and preferences. The paper provides insights that could be generalized as best practices for conducting intergenerational workshops. Moreover, we suggest a framework for future research and development in XR tailored for older adults.

Ethical considerations were strictly adhered to during the recruitment of older adults for the workshops. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no health records or cognitive information were requested during the recruitment process, ensuring privacy and respect for personal data. We followed the ethical guidelines and best practices provided by our research institute's ethics committee to safeguard the dignity, autonomy, and confidentiality of all participants. All workshop activities were based on informed consent, complying with GDPR rules. Each participant received a detailed consent form, which included information about the type of data collected, the process, the purpose, and the duration of data storage. Moreover, before collecting any data, we conducted a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) to analyze the main risks associated with data processing and to identify the most appropriate mitigation measures.

We recruited older adults who were living independently and were able to travel to the study site (GERO location) to participate in the workshop. We shared recruitment information through social media and sent invitation emails to people who had participated in previous studies conducted by the GERO research team. As mentioned in Section 3.1, health and cognitive status of older adult participants were not collected to avoid any formal cognitive or health screening that could lead to exclusion or stigmatization based on medical diagnoses. Instead, our functional inclusion criteria (independent living and autonomous travel to the study site) served as practical indicators that participants retained sufficient cognitive and physical abilities to actively engage in and contribute to the collaborative co-design activities required by the workshop. Thirteen participants, including students and older adults, participated in the study. Among them, six students (four women and two men) took part in this exploratory study as illustrated in Table 1. Additionally, seven older adults (three women and four men) were included in the research. The average age was 22 y/o for students and 72 y/o for older adults, with the oldest participant being 92 y/o.

Participants completed informed consent forms prior to taking part. The participants were informed that they were allowed to quit the experiment at any point without any repercussions. The older adults were asked to indicate their educational background. Two older adults stated that they had previously used Augmented Reality (AR) on a mobile phone, while another two reported having tested a Virtual Reality (VR) or AR Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs). Moreover, all older adults speak the Luxembourgish while one speaks only the English. As for the students, all of them speak the Luxembourgish while one speaks only the English.

To assist older adults in their daily lives, participants suggest storyboards for XR applications. Four storyboards correspond to four different scenarios, collaboratively chosen by older adults and students. Following, we illustrate the scenarios:

Hence, previous scenarios emphasize three broad areas of interest with the third and fourth scenarios overlapping in focus: Healthcare & wellbeing, Accessibility & Mobility, and Smart Living & Urban Navigation. The Table 4 consists of three main board areas, each associated with a core research topic and a specific application domain that describes how XR technology is applied. It answers the third research question and highlights the potential of XR to improve older adults daily lives. It serves as a framework for future research and development in XR tailored for older adults.

Table 5 presents descriptive statistics, including the mean and Standard Deviation (SD), for the three dimensions using the responses of older adults and students. The three dimensions, Workshop Impact, Value of intergenerational Learning, and Future Workshop Demand were generally well-rated by older adults, with average scores of 3.07, 3.47, and 3.57, respectively. These values suggest a favorable overall perception of the workshop across dimensions.

The highest score was about the necessity of proposing additional workshops represented by Future Workshop Demand, underscoring the importance of promoting such workshops to encourage the research community in different domains, such as AI, Robotics, etc. to involve older adults in co-design application via similar further workshops. Moreover, the older adults responses regarding questions Q3, Q4, and Q5 described under the Value of intergenerational Learning dimension provide insight into the benefits of intergenerational workshop and confirm the interest in assisting students in helping older adults adopt new technologies. However, the SD for the Workshop Impact dimension is 0.87. It's relatively high compared to the SD of other dimensions and suggests the debate among older adults about their confidence in using technology related to Augmented Reality in the future after the workshop. To investigate this, we analyzed potential relationships between the three dimensions and three questions related to participants background in Augmented and Virtual Reality, as described in Section 3.4.1. We first applied the ShapiroWilk test (Hanusz et al., 2016) to check whether the data were normally distributed (see Table 5). The results indicated a normal distribution (p > 0.05) for the Workshop Impact (p = 0.47) and Value of Intergenerational Learning (p = 0.61) dimensions, while the Future Workshop Demand dimension followed a non-normal distribution (p = 0.0015 <0.05). Therefore, we applied a t-test (Student, 1908) which assumes normally distributed data, to the normally distributed dimensions and Wilcoxon test (Wilson, 2024) which is used when the data is not normally distributed to the non-normal distribution dimension. The analysis revealed no clear (p > 0.05) or substantial patterns linking prior XR experience to any of the three dimensions. Given the small number of participants, these exploratory analyses should be interpreted cautiously and do not support definitive conclusions about the role of prior technology experience. Hence, the low scores noted by some older adults for the Workshop Impact dimension may be due to the content of the workshop and specifically the two XR applications. Some older adults raised their dissatisfaction with the XR applications crashing during the Hand-on session, as highlighted in the focus group discussion Section 4.3.

Unlike older adults, students scored the impact of the workshop highly 3.5 with a relatively homogeneous response among the students (SD = 0.39). Although the study involved a relatively small participant sample, this finding provides preliminary yet encouraging evidence in response to the fourth research question, suggesting potential benefits of integrating such a workshop into the annual curricula of educational technology institutions. However, the standard deviations for the Value of Intergenerational Learning and Future Workshop Demand dimensions are 1.24 and 0.94. These latter indicate high diversity in students responses to these two dimensions. These could be explained through the focus group discussion described in detail in the following section, as some students claim that older adults were very enthusiastic about Augmented/Virtual Reality and highly engaged in the discussion. However, other students found that communication with older adults was difficult. Therefore, these pieces of feedback could explain the debate in answering about the Value of Intergenerational Learning and the Future Workshop Demand dimensions.

We collected qualitative data through Focus Group Discussion method (Amestoy Alonso et al., 2024) as illustrated in Figure 9. Participants were divided into three groups, older adults who speak Luxembourgish, single older adult who speaks only English, and students, all of them speak English. The participants asked different questions regarding their enjoyment of the workshop, aspects that could be improved, and any additional comments or suggestions for future workshops.

Older adults indicated a high satisfaction on the three dimensions: Workshop Impact, Value of Intergenerational Learning, and Future Workshop Demand with average scores of 3.07, 3.47, and 3.57, respectively, as illustrated in Table 5. These quantitative results, particularly regarding the Value of Intergenerational Learning dimension, find convergent support in the qualitative data obtained from the older adults' focus group discussion. During the content analysis (see Table 7), a category called Engagement and Intergenerational Learning was identified. This category included five meaning units such as “I was working well with two young people” or “I found really important for instance, that we had the young student, and I could ask him many questions, and he could answer them all.” This study focuses on the co-design of XR applications. The high average score of 3.57 for the question “Would you be interested in attending more workshops on Augmented Reality or other emerging technologies?,” which corresponds to the Future Workshop Demand dimension, confirms the strong interest of older adults in participating in such intergenerational workshops focused on emerging technologies. Despite the limited sample of older adult participants, we advocate for institutions, associations, and municipalities offering activities for older adults to formally integrate such intergenerational workshops into their annual programming to capitalize on the observed benefits.

Moreover, we examined potential relationships between the three dimensions and three questions related to older adults' backgrounds in augmented and virtual reality. No significant relationships were found. While these results cannot be generalized due to the limited number of participants, they nonetheless offer preliminary insights for future intergenerational workshop planning, indicating that regardless of participants' prior experience with the technology used as the workshop topic may not substantively affect the workshop's impact or the value of intergenerational learning for them. As mentioned previously in the state of art section, Cucinelli et al. (2018) identified the uneven distribution of technical knowledge as a challenge when older adults and younger generations work together in video game design workshops using Scratch. In our case, however, this challenge did not arise because our approach leverages the imagination of older adults and their ability to translate daily tasks into the storyboard. Therefore, prior technical knowledge does not appear to be required from the older adults. However, based on the different meaning units identified through the Technology Acceptance category (see Tables 6, 7) such as “Our group was not very enthusiastic about the whole technology, so it made it really hard to generate ideas that would help,” we recommend investigating any potential relationship between the Personal Innovativeness (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000) and the three dimensions.

There was more debate through students responses about the Value of Intergenerational Learning dimension with a standard deviation 1.24. Qualitative findings from the focus group discussions help explain this variability. Several students valued the chance to discuss technology and science with older adults, seeing clear benefits in intergenerational learning (see Table 6). However, others found communication difficult. Some students mentioned that older adults' lack of enthusiasm for technology made it harder to connect, which likely reduced how much they valued these interactions. These qualitative findings shed light on why the quantitative scores varied so much. Hence, one of the key challenges observed in the intergenerational workshop can be seen through the feedback provided by participants from both generations. An older adult shared that “Student was rather shy,” which suggests limited communication with the student. Therefore, we recommend providing students with guidance on how to effectively communicate with older adults before the intergenerational workshop. This could include being patient, and tailoring conversations for better understanding. Students rated the overall impact of the workshop highly 3.5 with relatively homogeneous responses (SD = 0.39). This consistency is echoed in the qualitative data from the student focus group discussions (see Table 6), where two codes are identified: Gaining new perspectives and Challenging stereotypes about older adults. Together, these qualitative insights help explain the convergence observed in the quantitative results, suggesting that intergenerational engagement contributed to both perspective-taking and the reconsideration of age-related assumptions. These insights highlight the potential of intergenerational initiatives to foster shared learning experiences and address stereotypical perceptions.

Hence, based on these exploratory findings, we tentatively suggest that institutions, associations, and municipalities consider integrating such intergenerational workshops into annual programs for older adults, while educational technology institutions may also benefit from exploring the incorporation of intergenerational workshops into their annual curricula. If validated through larger-scale studies, this approach could potentially help students become more aware of and sensitive to the specific needs of older adults within society, though further research is needed to confirm these preliminary observations.

The methodology consists of two different workshops: a pre-workshop with students to prepare them to animate the discussion, present two different XR applications and the co-design activities with older adults during the main workshop, and a main workshop with students and older adults with the main objective to provide a first hands-on XR experience for older adults and co-design a storyboard for potential XR applications. We acknowledge that this design introduces differences in familiarity and system understanding between the two groups. However, this asymmetry aligned with the study's focus on intergenerational collaboration and shared expertise in co-designing XR applications, rather than requiring equal technical knowledge from both groups. Furthermore clear and practical XR applications should be emphasized to help make the material more engaging and convincing for older adults during workshop. Moreover, content cards were not clear for some older adults that noted in the focus group discussion their preference to have more explanation about these cards. This could be derived from a lack of communication with students at the same table. Furthermore, participants who do not share a common language present an additional challenge for workshop organization. We had one table composed of an older adult and a student who communicated together in English, while the workshop presentation was delivered in Luxembourgish. One of the facilitators sat near the older adult and translated for him, but this was difficult since he could not translate loudly without distributing the other tables. As a result, the student sitting at same table was unable to benefit from the translation. Therefore, a real time English-speaking translator is necessary so that translations can be provided via headphones for English speaker participants. In the workshop structure, we also recommend providing more hands-on testing time to enhance older adults engagement.

Furthermore, four storyboards for a potential XR application aimed at supporting older adults in their daily lives were proposed during the intergenerational workshop. These included: (1) Memory assistance tools for individuals in the early stages of dementia, (2) XR-supported guidance for safely climbing stairs, (3) Augmented Reality (AR) navigation aids for grocery shopping, and (4) AR-enabled emergency assistance and real-time navigation. Each concept addressed specific challenges commonly faced by aging populations and leveraged XR technologies to offer intuitive, engaging, and supportive solutions. Drawing from these storyboards, we identify key areas for future research and development in XR applications tailored to older adults. These areas can be grouped into three overarching domains: (1) Healthcare & Wellbeing, focusing on cognitive support, mental health, and chronic condition management; (2) Accessibility & Mobility, addressing physical limitations, safe navigation, and independence in movement; and (3) Smart Living & Urban Navigation, which includes the integration of XR into smart home environments and public infrastructure to enhance safety, convenience, and autonomy. These domains offer a roadmap for developing inclusive and impactful XR solutions that align with the needs of an aging population. Therefore, we recommend that companies developing XR applications consider older adults during the design process, especially when applications relate to one of three broad areas. For example, applications like Beat Saber (2019) are well-suited for the first area: Healthcare and Well-being. Nevertheless, such applications remain poorly adapted to the needs and abilities of older adults.

An intergenerational workshop can be conducted starting from two persons: an older adult and a younger generation representative. However, to study the benefits and gain insights and findings from the intergenerational workshop, to the best of our knowledge, there is no specific minimum number of participants in intergenerational workshops mentioned in the state of the art, unlike, for example, studies Lewis (1994) and Robert (1992), which have shown that a small number of participants can uncover a large share of usability issues, with some suggesting that five users may identify up to 80% of problems. However, we consider the sample size in this study (n = 13) to be limited and acknowledge that it constrains the generalizability of the findings.

We did not formally assess participants' cognitive or health status to avoid stigmatization and medicalization of the recruitment process. However, this means our sample likely consisted of higher functioning older adults capable of independent living and travel. Therefore, our findings may not generalize to older adults with moderate to severe cognitive impairments or significant functional limitations, and future work should examine intergenerational XR workshop methodology that can accommodate a broader range of cognitive abilities.

Furthermore, future research would benefit from comparing these results with those from non-intergenerational workshops to better contextualize the findings. Hence, it is important to conduct non-intergenerational workshops with older adults to design XR storyboards and others with students, and compare them with the intergenerational workshops proposed in this study, as this would offer valuable context for interpretation.