The university students of today are the decision-makers of tomorrow. Higher education institutions cannot ignore their impact on society (Bringle and Hatcher, 2000) or neglect the increasingly complex challenges of an interconnected and constantly changing world. These changes are not strictly limited to the professional context but affect all areas of students’ relationships with their community. This responsibility may lead universities to reconfigure both their programs and teaching-learning methodologies (Santos Rego et al., 2021). The aim is to achieve graduate student profiles that recognize their social responsibility in building a more egalitarian world as an essential part of their professional training.

Service-learning is a methodology that promotes the integral development of the student. It combines the development of generic and specific student competences while students provide a service to the community (learning by doing) (Bringle and Hatcher, 2000; Furco and Norvell, 2019; Lewing, 2019). This systematic review is part of an international project that involves more than 20 universities worldwide and seeks to promote the institutionalization of the service-learning methodology in higher education institutions.

Advances in health care have led to increased life expectancy and a growing older population. The need to prepare university students to work with older adults and their families is increasing as the aging population grows (Faria et al., 2010).

Research has reported that nursing home residents spend most of their time being inactive; they have a sedentary daily routine and feel lonely and disconnected from the community (Giné-Garriga et al., 2019). In addition, several studies have investigated university students’ attitudes toward older adults and observed considerable age discrimination. These negative perceptions are often due to insufficient positive contact with older adults (Chen, 2018).

Therefore, promoting intergenerational experiences that help reduce discrimination toward older adults is necessary to dispel myths related to aging and enable students to learn about age diversity (Hwang et al., 2013; Chen, 2018). There is also an urgent need for initiatives, inside and outside the nursing home that provide opportunities for older people to participate in meaningful activities that promote their health and mental well-being and help them engage in daily routines and connect with the community (Giné-Garriga et al., 2019). Notably, most educational programs do not provide specialized training to work with elderly individuals, despite learning to work with older adults being essential in health, socio-educational and business administration careers (Natvig, 2007; Heuer et al., 2019; Howell et al., 2020). Research shows that students who have little contact with older adults tend to have more negative views of and little intention to work with an older population in their careers (Howell et al., 2020).

In this sense, intergenerational experiences may help students learn about older adults, confront stereotypes about aging, and consider working with this population (Oakes and Sheehan, 2014). Engaging students in intergenerational service-learning (SL) experiences is a means of raising students’ interest in the aging population and making learning experiences more meaningful (Oakes and Sheehan, 2014; Andreoletti and Oward, 2016; Yeung et al., 2019). The value of students gaining direct personal experience working with or providing services to older adults has long been recognized (Zucchero, 2010; Chen, 2018).

Intergenerational SL experiences combine skills and knowledge acquired in the classroom with real-world experiences (Tapia, 2010). In these experiences, relationships between adults and elders are built in a way that promotes meaningful learning, reflection, active participation, and attitudinal changes (Faria et al., 2010). SL helps students to advance beyond thinking about an issue and act on it (Lewis, 2002). These experiences can lead to mutually beneficial relationships that are intellectually stimulating for younger and older people (Natvig, 2007). On the one hand, these experiences offer students the opportunity to connect theory with practice (Kim et al., 2003; Fruhauf et al., 2004; Martin et al., 2016), increase empathy, improve professional skills, increase commitment to social justice, and develop a sense of citizenship (Gelfand and Firman, 1981; Kim et al., 2003). On the other hand, they may increase life satisfaction and self-esteem of older people, increase their knowledge, and allow them to share life’s experiences with others (Anstee et al., 2008).

Despite the large body of research on the definition and benefits of SL for learners in general (Yeung et al., 2019), there are no systematic reviews of the full range of benefits of intergenerational SL experiences for older people, students, and organizations. Furthermore, Roodin et al. (2013) highlighted that despite studies that have reported on positive outcomes of SL, there is a need to improve the research by using reliable, valid measurement instruments to compare the results in the literature. Similarly, Yeung et al. (2019) highlighted that conducting research that evaluates the outcomes of intergenerational programs among elderly individuals becomes imperative to advancing knowledge in the intergenerational field.

In this context, this paper undertook a rigorous systematic review to answer one research question: What benefits do SL experiences that engage university students with older individuals provide to the groups of participants? Therefore, this research work aims to identify the benefits of the intergenerational service-learning methodology for three relevant social agents: the students, the elderly and the organizations.

To define a frame of reference for the benefits of participating in an intergenerational SL experience in higher education, in this section, we provided the descriptors of the selected and analyzed studies.

In this systematic review, our aim is to determine the benefits that SL with elders at university provides to the groups involved. On the one hand, SL contributes to the integral development of the student, in terms of increased social awareness and commitment and the development of relevant attitudes and skills that contribute to improved academic and professional performance. On the other hand, SL also promotes intergenerational relationships that help increase the well-being of older individuals, in terms of health and psychology, by reducing their sense of isolation, improving their self-esteem and generativity, helping them learn new knowledge about themselves, and receiving personalized and quality care. Finally, SL fosters the ethical commitment of the university, residences, agencies, and other organizations to social sustainability. As a result, positive impacts on the community are observed.

The authors identify the difficulties observed during the experiences: those of a practical nature due to timetables, travel, and space; those of the students due to their insufficient preparation for interacting with elderly individuals or their extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation; those of the teachers due to a cost–benefit imbalance; and those of elderly individuals due to the possible feeling of loss at the end of the service. Notably, the profile of the teaching staff is not analyzed, and their benefits are not highlighted in the reviewed papers; however, their difficulties are. Because the effort to organize an SL is significant, a certain institutional incoherence is identified between a notable acceptance of SL in the university and its lack of recognition of the teaching staff.

To ensure the success of the experience, the authors make recommendations related to the need for institutional support, prior analysis of the context in which the experience will occur, planning, coordination and accompaniment, and evaluation based on reflection.

The papers also suggest further lines of research: obtain information on the possible increase in the self-esteem of students and older adults (Anstee et al., 2008); consider, in addition to the effects of SL on students’ learning, the effects of students’ knowledge and training on their SL experiences (Fruhauf et al., 2004); analyze samples with diversity in gender, background, and culture of students and elderly individuals (Morris et al., 2019); study whether there are differences by age in the degree to which intergenerational SL programs benefit elders (Underwood and Dorfman, 2006); use qualitative focus-group methodology to inquire into the experience (Zucchero, 2010); and to analyze in depth the forms of intervention performed.

In all the cases, the authors point out that the results of the experiences analyzed are positive. However, some issues make generalization difficult. For example, that students’ reflections were part of the grading (Morris et al., 2019) could prevent negative issues from being observed, that the contact time with the elders was too short (Oakes and Sheehan, 2014), or that the elders who signed up for the experience did so with a strong desire to cooperate (Yeung et al., 2019). The predominant profile of the experiences—women aged between 18 and 24 studying health sciences—could also have conditioned the results.

The validity of the analyses may also be affected by the absence of control groups (only used in the case of Fruhauf); by the difficulty of measuring results in the “community,” or in the group of elderly individuals with cognitive disabilities; and by there being too few long-term studies to would allow us to judge whether the SL experiences affected already practicing professionals. The research method used and the sample size are also two factors that condition the quality of the analyses. Except in the cases of Bullock (mixed, 219 elders), Heuer (mixed, 145 students), and Hwang (quantitative, 126 students), the remainder use small samples, as some of the authors admit (Kim et al., 2003; Oakes and Sheehan, 2014; Bunting and Lax, 2019; Howell et al., 2020). Cases are also reported in which it was difficult to collect data from elders (Bullock), especially when surveys were administered online (Yeung et al., 2019). Moreover, no data were collected to provide profiles of the elderly individuals (Heuer et al., 2019), or, this time related to the evaluation of the students, questionnaires were completed six months later (Yeung et al., 2019). No studies have collected evaluations from the families of the elderly participants nor the care staff. In addition, the fact that the experiences were short (Hwang et al., 2013) or that the students did not report all their experiences of interactions with the elders because they were asked to indicate only the outstanding experiences (Morris et al., 2019) does not help to extrapolate the results either.

Additionally, we observed that the studies focus on participants’ recent perceptions of the experiences, which, as our paper has shown, are positive. However, no studies investigate over time how these learners and the community they served were affected, namely, transformed, to a greater or lesser extent by the SL experience. Notably, only two papers explicitly provide as an outcome an increased sense of social responsibility by students and in motivation toward civic engagement (Kim et al., 2003; D’abundo et al., 2011). Also remarkable is that on only one occasion do students work with elders and not for elders (Yeung et al., 2019). This finding reflects the passive rather than active conception of elderly individuals by students and teachers. Roodin’s systematic review in 2013 presented the same result. Finally, it is striking that three of the SL experiences analyzed investigate high-income elders (Natvig, 2007; Oakes and Sheehan, 2014; Yeung et al., 2019). In these cases, there is likely an imbalance in the objectives pursued by the SL experiences, which are more oriented toward improving students’ learning than toward the service provided to the community with the joint aim of transforming social reality.

Finally, we highlight the absence of SL experiences in which students and/or associations or agencies representing the community play a leading role in the design and development of the experience.

Our review has limitations: only three databases (Scopus, ERIC, and WoS) were used for the selection of papers; only articles were considered and no other types of publications such as conference papers, doctoral theses, or books; only papers written in English were considered; and the search date ended in December 31, 2020. These limitations suggest that future research should expand the search and review of related studies in other languages and other high-impact databases, both national and international.

Because the university is an institution with a significant power to influence society, its responsibility cannot only be to train responsible citizens; contribute to economic, social, and cultural development; or generate and transmit new knowledge. The university must integrate all these aspects toward social transformation, focusing on social and economic vulnerability (De la Cruz and Sasia, 2008). In this sense, according to the results obtained in this review, SL is a tool that makes it possible to orientate students’ learning toward this horizon of social justice, facilitating the inclusion of elderly individuals and social cohesion between the two age groups.

These results are consistent with those in other systematic reviews, for example, that of Ruiz-Montero et al. (2019), who also found benefits for students and seniors. According to Tapia (2015), SL makes it possible for higher education to cease being considered as a formality for finding employment or an “ivory tower” in which research does not connect with the social sphere. SL makes it possible for the university to be a place of science that links knowledge with the needs and aspirations of the community and where individuals learn to be professionals oriented toward the common good and not merely self-serving interests. In this sense, SL would advance beyond an exchange of mutual benefits between the educational community and the social community. What stands out is SL’s potential to transform individuals, their beliefs, attitudes, and desires, and through this, their contribution to a more harmonious society. It is the combination of knowledge, experience, and reflection what enables the desired transformation. The interaction between theoretical and practical knowledge and living-feeling with the community is precisely what makes this methodology so special.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

MA and AD-I: conceptualization, methodology, and investigation. AD-I, MA, AE, and MG-F: formal analysis. AE and MG-F: resources, visualization and funding acquisition. MA: project administration. All authors writing –original draft, writing-review and editing, and read and agreed on the published version of the manuscript.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.