Computers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Parenting in the digital age: Attitudes, controls and limitations regarding children’s use of ICT

Duygu Gür *, Yalın Kılıç Türel

Computer and Instructional Technology Education, Fırat University, Elazı˘g, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Digital parenting

Information and communication technologies (ICT)

Parental control Limitations Online risks

A B S T R A C T

Today, with the development of technology, many possibilities are offered to users; however, these possibilities bring along some risks and threats. It is very important to ensure that users, especially teenagers, can benefit from the possibilities of technology at the highest level by minimizing the existing risks. At this point, the roles, attitudes and behaviors of parents have an important effect. The purpose of this study is to reveal the attitudes, behaviors, controls and limitations of middle school students’ parents towards their children’s use of information tech-nologies. For this purpose, data were collected from parents through survey and interviews. The participants of the study consisted of 354 parents of 6th and 7th grade students from seven public schools and four private schools. The parents filled out a questionnaire. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 volunteer parents. According to the results, parents ‘atti-tudes towards their children’s ICT use were positive and they especially supported their use of ICT for educational purposes. However, it was revealed that parents were concerned about the possible risks and security threats that their children may encounter in virtual environments, and therefore they take precaution in order to prevent their children from possible risks by informing, controlling and limiting their children. Based on the results, while children benefit from digital opportunities, they need to prevent themselves from digital risks as well through precautions and interventions with the support of school-parent cooperation.

1. Introduction

Technological developments increase people’s living standards (Nevado-Pena,˜ Lopez´-Ruiz, & Alfaro-Navarro, 2019) and reduce their workload (Demir & Ozmizrak,¨ 2014), which results in more meaningful lives. Thus, digital tools became an irrevocable aspect for people’s daily lives. Also, information and communication technologies (ICT) have also become a part of children’s lives and affected their development (Bardakçı, 2018; Chou, 2012; Yeh, Chang, & Chang, 2011). According to the Eurostat report (2020), 94% of children between the ages of 16 and 19 use the Internet daily. In another study conducted in the United States, it was found that 92 percent of children between the ages of 13 and 17 go online every day, 24 percent go online almost constantly, and 56 percent go online several times a day (Gomez,´ Harris, Barreiro, Isorna, & Rial, 2017). There is also an increase in use of social media and their access rate through mobile technologies (Gür, 2017). While the internet usage rate of children in Turkey is determined as 82.7%; it has been reported that 31.3% of children who use the Internet regularly also use social media and spend about 3 h a day on social media (TÜIK,˙ 2021). According to the same report, 64.4% of children use mobile phones/smartphones to access the internet. ICT have also

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Gür), [email protected] (Y.K. Türel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104504

Received 9 November 2021; Received in revised form 2 February 2022; Accepted 18 March 2022

Available online 22 March 2022

0360-1315/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

enriched the educational settings, which result in more widespread use of them by children and young people. Realizing their digital rights, this increase brings up an important issue for children to be protected from online risks (Chang et al., 2019; Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Wang & Ngai, 2021).

Informal education first starts in the family environments for children; therefore, parents have more power to influence their children’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors than teachers in the school environments (Aktas¸ -Arnas, 2005; Hammer, Scheiter, & Stürmer, 2021). This may imply that children’s attitudes towards technology while protecting themselves from risks and threats are linked to parents’ attitudes and behaviors. There exist studies asserting that parents’ thoughts about children’s engagement with technology, their reactions to the changes and developments in technology, and their attitudes towards technology affect children’s online behaviors (Chandrima et al., 2020; Efe, Erdem, & Vural, 2021; Li, Garland, & Howard, 2014; Sela, Zach, Amichay-Hamburger, Mishali, & Omer, 2020; Wang et al., 2018; Yu & Shek, 2013; Alvarez,´ Torres, Rodríguez, Padilla, & Rodrigo, 2013). Therefore, parents should be cautious about appropriate and conscious use of technology and encourage their children to benefit from technological opportunities at the maximum level (Manap, 2020; Rodríguez-de-Dios, van Oosten, & Igartua, 2018). Indeed, according to Adigwe and van der Walt (2020), parents should support their children to develop digital skills that mediate possible digital risks and that are related to navigation in online settings and responsibilities for online safety. While Fu et al. (2020) emphasized parental intervention to prevent cellphone addiction in adolescents, Ho, Lwin, Yee, Sng, and Chen (2019) and Vale, Pereira, Gonçalves, and Matos (2018) revealed the importance of parental guidance and/or restrictive approach in protecting children from the negative effects of cyber-bullying. According to Sutherland, Facer, Furlong, and Furlong (2000), the situations surrounding children’s digital technology use include the opinions, attitudes, and motivations of children and family members towards the use of computers and the Internet at home. More specifically, Gomez´ et al. (2017) emphasized that adolescence is a critical period in which future habits and behaviors including responsible internet usage are formed and children’s use of the Internet, online risks, and parental behaviors for intervention and preventions need to be well understood.

Keya, Rahman, Nur, and Pasa (2020) conducted a qualitative study using ethnographic interviews with children and independent interviews with parents in Northwest Bangladesh. The results of the study revealed that problematic child-parent relationship, parental attitudes that lead children to become competitive in education, parental ignorance, child’s loneliness and anxiety, and permissive parenting are the predictive factors for digital game addiction. Similary, Vale et al. (2018) conducted a study on cyber-aggression in adolescence and reported that while adolescents in the non-violent group considered their parent’s approach as authoritarian, the others who demonstrate cyberbullying behaviors perceived their parents as laissez-faire and/or permissive. Rodríguez-de-Dios et al. (2018) also examined the effects of parental mediation (active and restrictive) on adolescents’ digital skills and found that positive attitudes towards ICT usage and technology anxiety have mediating effect on the association between online risks and opportunities. More specifically, while restrictive mediation results in less online risks, it also decreases the number of opportunities children may benefit. Also, studies revealed that parents’ positive attitudes towards ICT for educational purposes increase students’ learning and encourage students to conduct search in online settings (Kenar, 2012; McNaughton et al., 2008; Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018). In addition, Hammer et al. (2021) stated that parents have a critical role on shaping children’s beliefs towards digital media. These results may implicate that parental attitudes and beliefs may lead students to use technology for educational purposes (Hammer et al., 2021). In addition, parents’ gender, occupation, educational level, and the level of technology usage influence their attitudes and perceptions towards technology as well as their children’s technology usage or the level of risky behaviors in online settings (Alvarez´ et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2020; Hollingworth, Mansaray, Allen, & Rose, 2011).

In line with the findings in the literature, it is critical to reveal parents’ attitudes towards children’s use of technology and their controls and restrictions in order to design measures and interventios in line with parent-school cooperation, which may lead students benefit from technology at the highes level while protecting them from possible risks. Although rapid technological changes and their effects on individuals’ lives are popular topic for researchers, the role and effects of family dynamics are still concealed (Carvalho, Francisco, & Relvas, 2015; Chang et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2020; Manap & Durmus¸, 2021). Specifically, in order to minimize the risks and their negative consequences and to maximize the opportunities provided by technology, it is important to investigate parents’ roles, attitudes, and behaviors. In order to fill the gap in the literature and shed a light for future research, this study aimed to investigate teenagers’ use of ICT from parents’ perspective and parents’ attitudes and behaviors towards ICT and their control mechanisms, re-strictions, and the precautions they take against possible risks in regard with the scope of digital parenting. Thus, the following research questions were proposed:

RQ 1. What are the ICT tools that teenagers use, their ICT usage frequencies and the activities they perform? RQ 2. What is the level of ICT usage among parents?

RQ 3.What are parents’ attitudes toward their children’s use of ICT?

RQ 4. Do parents’ demographic characteristics (age, education level, occupation, monthly income, parental status) make a signif-icant difference on their attitudes towards children’s ICT use?

RQ 5.Does parents’ ICT use make a significant difference on their children’s ICT use?

2

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

2. Theoretical background and literature review

2.1. Possible risks in children’s use of ICT

In addition to opportunities including instant access to information and sharing information, advanced technologies also cause many problems arising from excessive or unconscious use of them (Cengizhan, 2005). When these problems are examined, the primary risks are accessing to illegal sites containing violence and sexuality easily or by chance, communication with unknown people, cyberbullying, and computer and Internet addiction (Altuna, Morentin, & Lareki, 2020; Kuss et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014; Martínez, Murgui, Garcia, & Garcia, 2019; Çelen, Çelik, & Seferoglu,˘ 2011). These risky usages have negative influcences on adolescents’ social, psychological, and academic development (Neverkovich et al., 2018).

Greenwood, Perrin, and Duggan (2016) reported that 90% of adolescents are active Facebook users and they log in to their account couple of times a day. As a feature, while Facebook allows its users to visit other people’s profiles and see their posts including pictures and videos and to send messages, Twitter and Instagram share users’ geographical locations with, maybe, strangers without users’ knowledge about it. This may result in exposure to some online risks (Fansher & Randa, 2019). In addition, in their study, Fansher and Randa (2019) stated that almost 36% of their adolescent participants reported sharing phone numbers and four percent shared ad-dresses in their social media accounts, which may unintentionally increase their exposure to potential criminals. Similar results were found by Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, and Gallas (2014). According to their results, almost half of social media users had negative experiences in online settings. In addition, many websites sell products including tobacco products and alcohol over the Internet without requiring any information including the age of the recipient, which may lead to the promotion of illegal substance use among children and young people over the Internet (S¸ endag˘ & Odabas¸ı, 2006). Exposure of children to inappropriate content online is one of the most concerning risks. Violence, sexuality, sexist, racist or hateful posts and messages can negatively affect children and teenagers (Karaduman, 2019). This may result in sexual abuse, cyberbullying and ideological risks (Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzig,¨ & ve Olafsson, 2011). One of the biggest problems encountered in online environments is the internet addiction. Internet addiction has become a public health problem that cannot be ignored, affecting daily life and causing stress on social relationships (Cash, Rae, Steel, & Winkler, 2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Malak, Khalifeh, & Shuhaiber, 2017). Excessive internet use causes negative effects on teenagers such as social, psychological or academic difficulties (Neverkovich et al., 2018).

In eliminating or minimizing risks and enabling students to benefit from digital opportunities at the highest level, parental attitudes and support come to the fore (Adigwe & van der Walt, 2020; Carvalho et al., 2015; Gomez´ et al., 2017; Sela et al., 2020; Vale et al., 2018; Yaman et al., 2019). Therefore, it is critical to know how and for what purposes ICT are used in addition to knowing how much ICT are used (Çelen et al., 2011) and this requires parents to properly and effectively supervise this situation. In fact, parents’ role and guidance may prevent children from possible online risks and threats (Gomez´ et al., 2017), which brings up a concept of digital parenting. In the literature, digital parenting is used to define a set of competencies and roles that parents should have in order to control and direct their children’s technology use as well as to ensure their children to benefit from ICT while protecting them from potential risks and threats.

2.2. Digital parenting

Being a full-time job, parenting is defined as a belief system that includes attitude, perception, expectation, knowledge, value, and action orientation towards the care and socialization of children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). However, today, parental responsibilities are changing in line with the needs of the digital age. In the digital age, parents try to resist or at least balance change while at the same time trying to embrace it in ways that meet the needs of their family (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020). Due to the changes in parenting in the digital age, while parents encourage their children to use digital media for educational and social purposes, they also attempt to minimize digital media risks and control their possible negative consequences (Manap, 2020). Specifically, parental control is vital in preventing and reducing the risks and threats children may encounter in their online activities (Gomez´ et al., 2017; Keya et al., 2020; Nouwen & Zaman, 2018; Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier, 2008). This implies that parents need to perceive and use technology in an effective way, prepare their children for the requirements of the information age, and encourage them to acquire and properly use information (Uzuegbunam, 2019). Therefore, parents should have sufficient knowledge about their children’s internet use, the online risks and threats, and the safe use of the Internet (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). Yurdakul, Donmez,¨ Yaman, & Odabas¸ı, (2013) classified the roles of digital parents into five categories (Digital literacy, Awareness, Control, Ethic, Innovation). Balkam (2014) also explained the way to become a good digital parent in seven steps while emphasizing healthy communication with children: “talk with your kids”, “educate yourself”, “use parental controls”, “set ground rules & apply sanctions”, “friend and follow, but don’t stalk”, “explore, share, and celebrate”, and “be a good digital role model”. Carvalho et al. (2015) also stated that satisfaction with the use of ICT creates different patterns at both individual and family levels (freedom for children and safety for parents), ensuring higher quality of parent-child relationships.

3. Methods

3.1. Research model

In this exploratory sequential mixed-method study, participants were provided a questionnaire and then, semi-structured in-terviews were conducted with parents to support quantitative findings in order to reach causal and comparative details that cannot be

3

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

reached with quantitative data. The exploratory sequential mixed-method approach requires collection of quantitative data in the first stage and collection of qualitative data in the second stage to explain the findings of quantitative data in detail (Creswell, 2013).

3.2. Participants

The participant selection of the study was completed in two stages. In the first stage, 500 sixth and seventh grade students were identified. In the study, the fifth grade students were not included since they were just transferred to middle school from elementary school; therefore, they may not adopt the school environment yet. In addition, those students may not be sufficient to use IT since they do not take any courses related to IT previously in school. Also, eight grade students were excluded from the study. The rationale for this exclusion is that eight grade students have a critical exam at the end of the school year. According to the exam results, students are able to choose the high school they prefer to go; therefore, parents may not allow their children to engage with technological devices, which may cause a bias in the result of the current study. The sample of the study consists of teenagers between the ages of 12 and 14 randomly selected from secondary schools in a city center. In the researches, teenagers are defined as the age range of 12–19 (Çelik, 2015; Enthoven et al., 2021; Griffith, Larson, & Johnson, 2018). In this study, participants consist of sixth (N = 220) and seventh (N = 134) grade students and 46% of participants (N = 164) were female while 54% of them (N = 190) were male. In addition, two third of the participants were from public school (N = 237) and others were from private school (N = 117).

In this study, a total of 500 parents were reached through those students and only the parent who was more dominantly engaged in his/her child’s ICT use completed the questionnaire. The data was screened in terms of missing values and invariance in values. After the exclusion of those cases, a total of 354 cases were included in the analysis. After the exclusion of those cases, a total of 354 cases were included in the analysis. Among the participants while 48.9% of them were fathers (N = 173), 47.5% were mothers (N = 168) and 3.7% identified themselves as other (caregivers such as uncle, grandmother, elder brother, etc. N = 13). Out of 354, 13 parents from a randomly selected public school voluntarily agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews.

3.3. Data collection tools

A questionnaire was administered to the parents in order to collect data in the first stage of the study. The questionnaire included three sections: the personal information form, the children’s technology usage and parental restrictions form, and the parents’ atti-tudes towards children’s use of ICT scale. In addition to the questionnaire, a parent interview form was employed. Table 1 provides the information about the association between the data collection tools and the research questions.

3.3.1. Personal information form

The personal information form is the first section of the questionnaire and consists of 15 questions developed by the researchers. The questions were related to parents’ age, occupation, education level, monthly income, parental status, the technological tools the parents had, and their use of those tools.

3.3.2. Children’s use of technology and parental restrictions form

In this section, the parents were asked about the frequency of their children’s use of technological tools including computer, internet, smartphones, and tablets during summer and school time. In addition, eight questions were developed by the researchers to identify parents’ permissions for their children to use those tools.

3.3.3. Parent’s attitudes towards Children’s use of ICT scale (PACU-ICT)

The scale was developed by Türel and Gür (2019) and consists of 18 items with three factors: Educational use (seven items), control and limitations (six items), and negative effects (five items). The scale was designed to examine use of ICT for educational purposes, attitudes towards online risks, and parents’ restrictions, and the precautions against possible risks The reliability coefficient values are given in Table 2.

3.3.4. Parent interview form

After an extensive literature review and obtaining parents’ and students’ views, the researchers developed the parent interview form. It consisted of questions related to parents’ perspectives towards children’s use of ICT, their control mechanisms, restrictions, and guidance strategies. A pool of 12 questions were developed and reviewed by two experts from the field of instructional technology and two from educational sciences who are experienced in qualitative research. After revisions, the final version of the form with seven items was obtained.

Table 1

The research questions and the data collection tools.

Data collection toolsResearch questions

Personal information formRQ2, RQ4

Children’s technology usage and parental restrictions formRQ1, RQ3, RQ5

Parents’ attitude towards Children’s ICT scaleRQ3, RQ4, RQ5

Parent Interview FormRQ3

4

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

Table 2

Cronbach’s alpha values.

Factors	Cronbach’s alpha values Original study	Cronbach’s alpha values Current study
PACU-ICT	.77	.79
Educational use	.83	.82
Control and limitations	.80	.83
Negative effects	.79	.72

3.4. Data analysis

After ensuring that the assumptions necessary for parametric tests were met, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for each factor in the attitude scale. In addition, independent samples t-tests and ANOVA tests were performed in order to identify possible effects of parents’ demographic information (RQ4) and technology usage (RQ5) on their attitudes towards children’s use of ICT. Also, additional analyses were conducted in order to calculate the effect size and also Cohen’s d criteria were used for interpretation. The qualitative data was analyzed by using content analysis.

4. Findings

In this section, the results are provided in the context of the research questions.

4.1. RQ1: Findings about children’s use of technological tools

According to the parents’ reports on their children’s use of technological tools during summer and school time, the frequencies were calculated (see Fig. 1).

According to the results, it is clearly seen that Internet was the most used technological tool during the school and summer time. Also, among the technological tools, the highest increase was observed in the use of Internet from school time to summer time. Today, Internet access becomes independent from time and place restrictions with mobile devices, which may be considered as an effect on this finding. Another critical finding is that the percentage of children who use the Internet more than 3 h increased from 10% to 34% in the summer time. The reason might be that during the school time children spend most of their time in schools and complete their homework. In addition, parents may have more restrictions in order to force their children to spend more time on their school duties.

4.2. RQ2: findings about parents’ use of technological tools

According to the results, while 83% of the parents had a computer and 73% had Internet access at home. In addition, the per­ centages for the computer and Internet usage were 71% and 78% for the parents, respectively. This difference might be due to easy access to Internet through mobile phones. Also, although 57% had an e-mail account, only 41% among them reported that they sent e-mails. Another finding is that the parents mainly used computers and Internet for one to 2 h per day. Overall, it is concluded that the participants were generally aware of computers and Internet as technological tools and used them. In addition, although 81% of the parents reported that they had information about safe Internet usage and informed their children about it, 40% did not know anything

Fig. 1. Children’s use of Technological Tools.

5

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

about family protection programs. This might be considered as a critical deficiency for the parents to control their children’s use of ICT.

4.3. RQ 3: Findings on parental attitudes and behaviors

In the study, RQ3 aimed to examine parents’ attitudes and permissions about children’s use of ICT. According to the findings, parents’ overall attitudes towards technology was found to be at medium level (X = 3.63, SD = 0.37). Specifically, parents’ attitudes towards use of technologies for educational purposes (X = 3.78, SD = 0.63) and control mechanisms and restrictions (X = 3.98, SD = 0.54) were high and their attitudes towards the negative effects of technology was at medium level (X = 3.00, SD = 0.73). These results revealed that although the parents supported use of technological tools in education, they had concerns about negative consequences of ICT usage and, as a result, had restrictions for their children.

In terms of social media usage, although 31% of the parents reported that they had no permission for their children to have social media accounts or to visit social media sites, 42% reported their permission with supervision. In addition, according to the results, majority of the parents allowed their children to use instant messaging applications under their supervision (Fig. 2). On the other hand, more than half of the parents stated that they did not allow their children to share geographical location in online settings. The parents who allowed their children to use all type of ICT had generally 1-h time restriction for children. The time that the parents allow their children to play games by using IT during the day decreases when it comes to online games. In short, the parents generally allowed their children to use ICT by supervision but became nervous in situations in which children may share their personal information in online settings, and as a result, they had more restrictions for their children.

4.4. RQ 4: Findings on parental attitudes in terms of demographic information

This study also investigated the effects of parental use of ICT and their demographic information on parents’ attitudes towards ICT usage. According to the results, although the attitude scores of the parents whose child was enrolled in public schools were higher than the scores of the parents whose child was enrolled in private schools, this difference was not statistically significant (t (354) = 2.13, p > 0.05). Based on the ANOVA results, while parents’ occupation and education level had a statistically significant effect on parents’ attitudes, parental status, and parents’ age did not have any effect. Specifically, the parents who worked as government officials had significantly higher attitude scores comparing with the parents who were workers (F (5,348) = 2.34, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.30). In addition, the parents with elementary school degree were found to have higher negative attitudes scores towards technology comparing with the parents with undergraduate degree (F (4,349) = 3.23, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.45).

4.5. RQ5: findings on parental attitudes in terms of parental use of technology

In this study, the effect of parents’ use of ICT on their attitudes was examined. According to the results, higher negative attitude scores were observed for the parents who did not own a computer and have access to internet at home (t1(351) = 4.19, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.44) and for the parents who did not use technological tools (t2(352) = 3.61, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.31). In terms of effect size values, parents’ use of technology had a medium effect on their attitudes (Cohen, 1988).

4.6. Parent opinions on their Children’s use of ICT

In the interviews with 13 parents, the majority of the parents (%82) reported that they were glad that their children use technology and trust them in this regard. In their responses, the parents stated that ICT tools contributed to their children to do their homework,

Fig. 2. Parental permissions related to children’s use of technology.

6

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

enriched their instructional activities by providing them repetition as much as they desired, and improved their children’s learning skills through conducting research. In addition, the parents stated that after completing their homework children had the opportunity to listen to music and play games in order to get rest. On the other hand, they raised their concerns about excessive use of technological tools and stated that they warned their children about it to protect their children’s health. More specifically, the parents seemed to be aware of the danger in excessive, unconscious, and uncontrolled use of technology and allowed children to use IT under their su-pervision to in order to minimize risks/threats and to increase effective use of them. Some parents shared their concerns about addiction since their children excessively used ICT by not following the rules. They also stated that they were concerned about their children’s use of social media. Specifically, they thought that their children may be exposed to inappropriate content or that they may experience physical and/or moral damage if they contact people they do not know. In order to prevent their children from those risks/ threats, they reported that they supervised their children while using ICT and had control mechanisms and restrictions (Table 3).

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study aimed to investigate parents’ attitudes and behaviors towards ICT and their control mechanisms, restrictions in use of ICT, and the precautions they take against possible risks. In the first stage of the study, the parents were asked to fill out a ques-tionnaire. In the second stage, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the parents. Qualitative data obtained through in-terviews were used to reveal detailed information (reasons of parents’ attitudes and behaviors, control mechanisms, limitations, perceived risks, etc.) that cannot be explained by quantitative data. According to the results, the parents had positive attitudes towards their children’s use of ICT for educational purposes. Similar result was found in the analysis of the interview data. In the interviews; parents stated that ICT usage supports children’s learning and offers many possibilities as children complete their homework and conduct research. In a study focusing on parents’ attitudes towards technology and its usage in classrooms, Kenar (2012) found positive parental attitude. In his study, parents believed that technology enriched lessons increase students’ academic achievement. Rodríguez-de-Dios et al. (2018) found similar results. In addition, in the study of McNaughton et al. (2008), parents of children using the augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, which are defined as devices that provide new communication opportunities for individuals with complex communication needs, were interviewed. Based on their findings, parents stated that effective use of AAC increases students’ learning, provides opportunities for research, and helps teachers to organize the instruction. Thus, these findings revealed parents’ positive attitude towards ICT usage for educational purposes, which in turn influence their children’s use of technology for educational purposes. This is important for children to use technology for educational purposes and to benefit from digital opportunities (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020). Because while parents impose some limitations to prevent existing risks, they can also prevent their children from benefiting from digital opportunities (Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018). Technology, which offers opportunities in many fields such as entertainment and communication, also offers many opportunities for both teachers and learners in the field of education (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). Providing easier and faster access to information resources, providing learning environments that will increase students’ interest and motivation and enable them to take an active role in the process, and gaining high-level thinking skills such as creativity, problem solving and critical thinking are some of these opportunities. In addition, studies show that children learn more effectively through technology (Cantabella, Lopez,´ Caballero, & Munoz,˜ 2018; Cho & Shen, 2013; García-Martín & García-Sanchez,´ 2018; Lacka, Wong, & Haddoud, 2021; Yürektürk & Cos¸kun, 2020). For this reason, the attitudes and behaviors of parents towards their children’s use of technology for educational purposes are very important for the educational process of their children. Another interesting finding is related to parents’ occupation and education level. Government officials comparing with workers and the parents with higher education degree comparing with the others had higher attitude scores. Similarly, Hollingworth et al. (2011) compared middle-class parents and working-class parents living in houses with different tech-nological tools (phone, tablet, computer etc.) and using technology intensively in their professional lives. Accordingly, it was deter-mined that middle-class parents considered their children’s learning with technology more positively and thought that technology contributed to their children to grow up as learners suitable for the knowledge economy. In the study of Alvarez´ et al. (2013), it was determined that urban families compared to families in rural areas and families with higher education compared to families with low education had higher attitudes. These results support the findings of this study. Despite the significant differences in parents’ attitudes

Table 3

Parents’ control mechanism and restrictions.

	f
Control mechanisms	9
Using ICT with parent
Following up children’s messages with friends	6
Checking up Internet history	4
Using parent protection plans	2
Restrictions	11
Time restriction
Permission for educational purpose	3
No permission to social media	8
No permission for sharing photos and personal information	8
Permission after completing homework	10
As a reward for obtained high grades from exams	4

7

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

towards their children’s technology usage in terms of occupation and education level, no significant difference was observed in parents’ negative thoughts and their control mechanisms and restrictions.

In terms of negative attitudes toward technology, it was determined that the parents’ attitudes towards the negative effects of technology were at moderate level. In the interviews with the parents, their rationale for negative attitudes were uncovered. It was revealed that the parents were worried that their children may become addicted to technology as a result of excessive and unconscious use and expose to inappropriate content (violence, sexuality, pornography, illegal acts etc.) . Some parents said they often had conflicts with their children about the use of technology. They also stated that this situation negatively affected the relationship between them. In addiation, the parents raised concerns about possible negative effects of technology on children’s health, psychological develop-ment, and relationships with their families. In our interviews, parents expressed their concerns that their children’s personal infor-mation and private lives may be disclosed, especially in the use of social media (for example; sharing identity information, photo, video and location). There were also a small number of parents who reported that technology use could negatively affect their child’s ac-ademic success. The qualitative data in the study supports and explains the quantitative data. In their study, Torun, Akçay, and Çoklar (2015) found that children’s online gaming habits had a moderate effect on family conflicts and social loneliness. In another study conducted by Alexiou-Ray, Wilson, Wright, and Peirano (2003), parents stated that although technology integration offers many new opportunities to their children for the best education, they were concerned about the dark face of technology. Similar conclusion was drawn by Oskay Yurttas¸ (2013) and Manap (2020). In the study of Inan˙-Kaya et al. (2018) parents reported that they were most concerned about the risk of sharing personal information, and this was followed by addiction, cyberbullying and the possibility of being a perpetrator or victim in any cybercrime. In addition, parents stated that they were worried about how to protect their children from these risks. On the other hand, some researchers discussed that rather than worrying about the online risks/threats, parents need to plan strategies to increase children’s effective and appropriate use of Internet (Daud, Omar, Hassan, Bolong, & Teimouri, 2014; Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020; Livingstone et al., 2017; Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018). As a matter of fact, in the interviews con-ducted in this study, a few parents stated that their children had limited access to technology and were allowed to use technology according to their rules and as a result, they did not observe the negative effects they were concerned about, which is among the important results of the study.

Another critical finding of the study is that the parents had high attitude scores towards supervision and restrictions. The parents explicitly stated that children’s technology usage should be supervised and some rules should be set up. Specifically, following up children’s ICT usage, time limitation, and disallowing for certain applications were mainly selected in the questionnaire filled out by the parents. In addition, during the interviews, the parents mentioned the same strategies and stated that they informed their children about the possible risks and threats that their children might encounter while controlling and limiting their use of technology. A few parents pointed out employing family protection programs and filters. Similar results were found in studies conducted by Alvarez´ et al. (2013), Flash Eurobarometer (2008), and Rode (2009). Parents in Rode’s study (2009) mentioned that they set up the computer in the same room where they were in and used filters to prevent their children from accessing to certain web pages that they consider to be risky and threatening. In the report published by the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI, 2015), which is one of the well-known institutions in the USA about online security, it was concluded that the majority of the parents control the incoming messages and limit the amount of messages sent by their children. Thus, these findings may be interpreted as the use of typical strategies of authoritarian styles as a verified observation in previous studies (Eastin, Greenberg, & Hofschire, 2006; Kenley, 2011; Martínez et al., 2019; Rosen et al., 2008; Valcke, Bonte, De Wever, & Rots, 2010). Based on all these findings, it may be concluded that parents generally have an oppressive and authoritarian attitude in controlling their children’s ICT usage. It is thought that the cultural characteristics of the region where the research was conducted may be effective on these results. In Turkey, which has a more collectivist cultural structure compared to Western countries; parents expect their children to be autonomous but emotionally in close relationship with their family, rather than full independence (Kagıtçıbas¸ı˘ & Ataca, 2005). For this reason, families in Turkey may have a more authoritarian or overprotective approach towards their children (Selçuk, 2015). Similarly, studies conducted in Turkey have shown that parents tend to be more authoritarian and overprotective in their children’s use of technology (Ceylan, 2017; Yaman et al., 2019; Ozgür,¨ 2016). Considering that the traditional culture is more dominant in the region where the research was conducted, this may have an impact on the results obtained. However, studies indicate that when trying to understand cultural differences, it is not enough to compare only countries or different regions within the same country, and it is necessary to investigate similarities and differences between families with different socio-economic status and different education levels (Ozdemir,¨ Bülbül, Balcı, & Türkoz,¨ 2020). Considering the importance of healthy communication between parents and children in terms of managing and guiding technology usage as Balkam (2014) mentioned, it is suggested that parents should be empowered in this regard. More specifically, parents should be knowledgeable about Internet safety and be aware of possible risks and threats and solutions, such as family pro-tection programs, to minimize their negative consequences. Making common decisions by providing information and explanation to the children should be ensured, and children should integrate technology into their lives. In addition, these approaches of parents towards their children’s use of ICT can also be effective on their digital literacy skills (Inan,˙ 2021; Rodríguez-de-Dios, van Oosten, & Igartua, 2018). Thus, lower literacy level may be associated with fewer digital opportunities (Adigwe & van der Walt, 2020). For this reason, researching parental approaches and children’s digital literacy skills in future studies may contribute to the field in this context.

In conclusion, the use of ICT tools for educational purposes should be developed with the support of parents, and thus, the use of applications that will contribute to students’ academic achievement should be expanded. More specifically, students should be informed by their parents and teachers from the first years that technological tools are not limited to only games and entertainment applications and there are other applications that will contribute to their courses and assignments, and they have the opportunity to access and share information by conducting research on the Internet.

8

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

6. Limitations

This study has some limitations. The first limitation is about the participants of the study. The participants consisted of 6th and 7th grade students’ parents. Future studies must consider including parents of children between the ages of 12–19 in order to obtain more detailed data. Also, rather than only obtaining data only from parents, adolescents should be also included in the studies in order to compare parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions about technology use. Another limitation is that this study considered parents’ atti-tudes and restrictions and the factors that may influence those as variables. In addition to those variables, future studies must consider parents’ digital literacy levels, technology addiction levels, online risky behaviors, their awareness towards digital opportunities, and online risk perceptions (Adigwe & van der Walt, 2020; Chandrima et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2019; Donmez,¨ 2015; Fu et al., 2020; Gomez´ et al., 2017; Livingstone et al., 2017; Mutlu-Bayraktar, Yılmaz, & Inan˙-Kaya, 2018; Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; Tekin & Polat, 2016; Yaman et al., 2019). Therefore, the mediating effect of parental attitudes and behaviors on online risks and opportunities may be identified, which leads to the development of intervention programs for adolescents.

Credit author statement

Duygu Gür: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing, Visualization. Yalın Kılıç Türel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing – review & editing.

References

Adigwe, I., & van der Walt, T. (2020). Parental mediation of online media activities of children in Nigeria: A parent-child approach. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100041.

Aktas¸-Arnas, Y. (2005). 3-18 Yas¸ grubu çocuk ve gençlerin interaktif iletis¸im araçlarını kullanma alıs¸kanlıklarının degerlendirilmesi˘. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4).

Alexiou-Ray, J. A., Wilson, E., Wright, V. H., & Peirano, A. (2003). Changing instructional practice: The impact of technology integration on students, parents, and school personnel. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 2(2), 58–80.

Altuna, J., Martínez-de-Morentin, J.-I., & Lareki, A. (2020). The impact of becoming a parent about the perception of Internet risk behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 110, 104803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104803

Alvarez,´ M., Torres, A., Rodríguez, E., Padilla, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2013). Attitudes and parenting dimensions in parents’ regulation of Internet use by primary and secondary school children. Computers & Education, 67, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.03.005

Balkam, S. (2014). 7 steps to good digital parenting. Family Online Safety Institute. https://www.fosi.org/good-digital-parenting/7-steps-good-digital-parenting/. Bardakçı, S. (2018). Dijital yas¸amda çocuk" kitabı üzerine bir inceleme. E˘gitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(2), 232–242.

Cantabella, M., Lopez,´ B., Caballero, A., & Munoz,˜ A. (2018). Analysis and evaluation of lecturers’ activity in Learning Management Systems: Subjective and objective perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(7), 911–923.

Carvalho, J., Francisco, R., & Relvas, A. P. (2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037

Cash, H., Rae, C. D., Steel, A. H., & Winkler, A. (2012). Send orders of reprints at [email protected] internet addiction: A brief summary of research and practice. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8(800), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340012803520513

Çelen, F. K., Çelik, A., & Seferoglu,˘ S. S. (2011). Çocukların internet kullanımları ve onları bekleyen çevrimiçi riskler. Akademik Bilis¸im Konferansı, 2–4. Çelik, N. (2015). Ailelerin satın alma kararlarında genç tüketicilerin etkisi. Giris¸imcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 10(1).

Cengizhan, C. (2005). O¨grencilerin˘ bilgisayar ve internet kullanımında yeni bir boyut: Internet bagımlılı˘gı˘. M.Ü. Atatürk E˘gitim Fakültesi E˘gitim Bilimleri Dergisi., 22, 83–98.

Ceylan, O¨. (2017). Anne baba tutumları ile çocu˘gun sosyalles¸me süreci arasındaki ilis¸ki: Okul oncesi¨ orne¨˘gi. Yayınlanmamıs¸ yüksek lisans tezi. Istanbul:˙ Istanbul˙ gelis¸im Üniversitesi.

Chandrima, R. M., Kircaburun, K., Kabir, H., Riaz, B. K., Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., et al. (2020). Adolescent problematic internet use and parental mediation: A Bangladeshi structured interview study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100288.

Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Chen, P. H., Chiang, J. T., Miao, N. F., Chuang, H. Y., et al. (2019). Children’s use of mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 25–32.

Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301.

Chou, M. J. (2012). Effects of computer-assisted instructions on logistic thinking and creation capability-A case study on G1 pupils using E-books. The International Journal of Oral Implantology, 5(2), 213–231.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487.

Daud, A., Omar, S. Z., Hassan, M. S., Bolong, J., & Teimouri, M. (2014). Parental mediation of children’s positive use of the Internet. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 360–369.

Demir, S.Ç., & Ozmizrak,¨ M. (2014). Bilgi teknolojileri sürüm ve gelis¸tirme yonetimi¨ uygulaması. Istanbul Ticaret Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(25), 35. Donmez,¨ O. (2015). Sınıf o¨˘gretmeni adaylarının çocukların kars¸ılas¸tı˘gı çevrimiçi risklere yonelik¨ algılarının çes¸itli de˘gis¸kenler açısından incelenmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi,

Eskis¸ehir: Yayınlanmamıs¸ doktora tezi.

Douglas, A. C., Mills, J. E., Niang, M., Stepchenkova, S., Byun, S., Ruffini, C., et al. (2008). Internet addiction: Meta-synthesis of qualitative research for the decade 1996-2006. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 3027–3044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb

Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61–67.

Eastin, M. S., Greenberg, B. S., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Parenting the internet. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 486–504.

Efe, Y. S., Erdem, E., & Vural, B. (2021). Lise o¨grencilerinde˘ siber zorbalık ve Internet˙ bagımlılı˘gı˘. Ba˘gımlılık Dergisi, 22(4), 465–473.

Enthoven, C. A., Polling, J. R., Verzijden, T., Tideman, J. W. L., Al-Jaffar, N., Jansen, P. W., et al. (2021). Smartphone use associated with refractive error in teenagers: The myopia app study. Ophthalmology, 128(12), 1681–1688.

Eurobarometer, F. (2008). Towards a safer use of the Internet for children in the EU—a parents’ perspective. Annex tables and survey details. Flash EB series 248. Hungary: The Gallup Organisation. Survey co-ordinated by Directorate General Communication.

Eurostat. (2020). Being young in Europe today. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Being_young_in_Europe_today.

Fansher, A. K., & Randa, R. (2019). Risky social media behaviors and the potential for victimization: A descriptive look at college students victimized by someone met online. Violence and Gender, 6(2), 115–123.

FOSI. (2015). Parenting in the digital age: How parents weigh the potential benefits and harms of their children’s technology use. Eris¸im tarihi: 25.05.2015 https://www.fosi. org.

9

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

Fu, X., Liu, J., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y., Hong, W., & Jiang, S. (2020). The impact of parental active mediation on adolescent mobile phone dependency: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106280.

García-Martín, J., & García-Sanchez,´ J. N. (2018). The instructional effectiveness of two virtual approaches: Processes and product. Revista de Psicodidactica,´ 23(2), 117–127.

Gomez,´ P., Harris, S. K., Barreiro, C., Isorna, M., & Rial, A. (2017). Profiles of Internet use and parental involvement, and rates of online risks and problematic Internet use among Spanish adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 826–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.027

Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016: Numbers, facts and trends shaping the world (pp. 1–19). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Griffith, A. N., Larson, R. W., & Johnson, H. E. (2018). How trust grows: Teenagers’ accounts of forming trust in youth program staff. Qualitative Psychology, 5(3), 340. Gür, D. (2017). Ortaokul o¨˘grencilerinin bilis¸im teknolojileri kullanımına yonelik¨ ebeveynlerin denetimleri ve tutumlarının çes¸itli de˘gis¸kenler açısından incelenmesi. Unpublished

Master Thesis. Elazıg:˘ Fırat University.

Hammer, M., Scheiter, K., & Stürmer, K. (2021). New technology, new role of parents: How parents’ beliefs and behavior affect students’ digital media self-efficacy.

Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106642.

Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on technology and children’s learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 347–360.

Ho, S. S., Lwin, M. O., Yee, A. Z., Sng, J. R., & Chen, L. (2019). Parents’ responses to cyberbullying effects: How third-person perception influences support for legislation and parental mediation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 373–380.

Inan,˙ G. (2021). Dijital çagda˘ çocuk yetis¸tirme ve egitim:˘ Degis¸en˘ roller. Insan˙ ve Insan,˙ 8(27), 83–100.

Inan˙-Kaya, G., Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., & Yılmaz, O¨. (2018). Digital parenting: Perceptions on digital risks. Kalem Uluslararası E˘gitim ve Insan˙ Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 131–157.

Kagıtçıbas¸ı,˘ C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology, 54(3), 317–337. Karaduman, S (2019). Yeni Medya Okuryazarlıgı:˘ Yeni Beceriler/Olanaklar/Riskler. Erciyes Iletis˙¸im Dergisi, 6, 683–700.

Kenar, I˙. (2012). Teknoloji ve derslerde teknoloji kullanımına yonelik¨ veli tutum olçe¨gi˘ gelis¸tirilmesi ve tablet pc uygulaması. E˘gitim Bilimleri Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, 2 (2), 123–136.

Kenley, H. (2011). Cyber bullying No more: Parenting a high tech generation. Loving Healing Press.

Keya, F. D., Rahman, M. M., Nur, M. T., & Pasa, M. K. (2020). Parenting and child’s (five years to eighteen years) digital game addiction: A qualitative study in North-western part of Bangladesh. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100031.

Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Binder, J. F. (2013). Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 959–966. Lacka, E., Wong, T. C., & Haddoud, M. Y. (2021). Can digital technologies improve students’ efficiency? Exploring the role of virtual learning environment and social

media use in higher education. Computers & Education, 163, 104099.

Li, W., Garland, E. L., & Howard, M. O. (2014). Family factors in internet addiction among Chinese youth: A review of English- and Chinese-language studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.004

Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig,¨ A., & ve Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697

Livingstone, S., Olafsson,´ K., Helsper, E. J., Lupia´nez˜-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277

Malak, M. Z., Khalifeh, A. H., & Shuhaiber, A. H. (2017). Prevalence of Internet Addiction and associated risk factors in Jordanian school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 556–563.

Manap, A. (2020). Anne babalarda dijital ebeveynlik farkındalı˘gının incelenmesi. Malatya: Yayınlanmamıs¸ doktora Tezi, In˙onü¨ Üniversitesi.

Manap, A., & Durmus¸, E. (2021). Dijital ebeveynlik farkındalıgının˘ aile içi roller ve çocukta Internet˙ bagımlılı˘gına˘ gore¨ Incelenmesi˙. Uluslararası E˘gitim Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 141–156.

Martínez, I., Murgui, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2019). Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036

McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., Krezman, C., Williams, M. B., & Light, J. (2008). A child needs to be given a chance to succeed: Parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 43–55.

Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Yılmaz, O¨., & Inan˙-Kaya, G. (2018). Digital parenting: Perceptions on digital risks. Kalem Uluslararasi Egitim ve Insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2018.96

Nevado-Pena,˜ D., Lopez´-Ruiz, V. R., & Alfaro-Navarro, J. L. (2019). Improving quality of life perception with ICT use and technological capacity in Europe.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119734.

Neverkovich, S. D., Bubnova, I. S., Kosarenko, N. N., Sakhieva, R. G., Sizova, Z. M., Zakharova, V. L., et al. (2018). Students’ internet addiction: Study and prevention.

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1483–1495. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83723

Nouwen, M., & Zaman, B. (2018). Redefining the role of parents in young children’s online interactions. A value-sensitive design case study. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 22–26.

Oskay Yurttas¸, G. (2013). Internet˙ kullanım alıs¸kanlıkları açısından ilko¨˘gretim 5.- 6.- 7.- 8. sınıf o¨˘grencilerinin durumu-Internet˙ kullanımı ile ilgili ailelerin de˘gerlendirmeleri. Unpublished Master Thesis. Ankara: Bas¸kent University.

Ozdemir,¨ Serap, Bülbül, Feyza, Balcı, Serap, & Türkoz,¨ Azime (2020). 11-18 Yas¸ Arasındaki Adolesanların Internet˙ Bagımlılık˘ Düzeyleri. Balıkesir Health Sciences Journal, 9(2), 83–92.

Ozgür,¨ H. (2016). The relationship between Internet parenting styles and Internet usage of children and adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 411–424. Rode, J. A. (2009). Digital parenting: Designing children’s safety. People and Computers XXIII Celebrating People and Technology, 244–251.

Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., van Oosten, J. M. F., & Igartua, J.-J. (2018). A study of the relationship between parental mediation and adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.012

Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2008). The association of parenting style and child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.005

Sela, Y., Zach, M., Amichay-Hamburger, Y., Mishali, M., & Omer, H. (2020). Family environment and problematic internet use among adolescents: The mediating roles of depression and Fear of Missing Out. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106226

Selçuk, B. (2015). Türkiye’de ebeveynlik. https://www.yapikrediyayinlari.com.tr/dosyalar/2018/04/cogito_Annelik_makale.pdf. S¸endag,˘ S., & Odabas¸ı, F. (2006). Internet˙ ve çocuk: Etik bunun neresinde? (pp. 1508–1515) Uluslararası Egitim˘ Teknolojileri Konferansı.

Sutherland, R., Facer, K., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2000). A new environment in education? The computer in the home. Computers & Education, 34, 195–212. Tekin, A., & Polat, E. (2016). Ortaokul o¨grenci˘ velilerinin güvenli Internet˙ kullanımı farkındalıgı˘. O¨˘gretim Teknolojileri ve O¨˘gretmen E˘gitimi Dergisi, 5(2).

Torun, F., Akçay, A., & Çoklar, A. N. (2015). Bilgisayar oyunlarının ortaokul o¨grencilerinin˘ akademik davranıs¸ ve sosyal yas¸am üzerine etkilerinin incelenmesi.

Karaelmas E˘gitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1).

TÜIK˙. (2021). Çocuklarda bilis¸im teknolojileri kullanım aras¸tırması. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Cocuklarda-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2021.

Türel, Y. K., & Gür, D. Ebeveynlerin çocukların bilis¸im teknolojileri kullanımına yonelik¨ tutumları üzerine bir olçek¨ gelis¸tirme çalıs¸ması. Uludag˘ Üniversitesi Egitim˘ Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 145-165.

10

D. Gür and Y.K. TürelComputers & Education 183 (2022) 104504

Uzuegbunam, Chikezie E. (2019). The digital lifeworlds of young Nigerians – Exploring rural and urban teens’ practices with, and negotiation of, digital technology. Unpublished Doctora Thesis, University of Cape Town.

Valcke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots, I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009

Vale, A., Pereira, F., Gonçalves, M., & Matos, M. (2018). Cyber-aggression in adolescence and internet parenting styles: A study with victims, perpetrators and victim-perpetrators. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 88–99.

Wang, Lin, & Ngai, Steven Sek-yum (2021). Understanding the effects of personal factors and situational factors for adolescent cyberbullying perpetration: The roles of internal states and parental mediation. Journal of Adolescence, 89, 28–40.

Wang, Q., Teng, Z., Xing, J., Gao, J., Hu, W., & Maybank, S. (2018). Learning attentions: Residual attentional siamese network for high performance online visual tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4854–4863).

Yaman, F., Donmez,¨ O., Akbulut, Y., Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., Çoklar, A. N., & Güyer, T. (2019). Exploration of parents’ digital parenting efficacy through several demographic variables. Egitim˘ ve Bilim https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7897.

Yeh, C.-C., Chang, D.-F., & Chang, L.-Y. (2011). Information technology integrated into classroom teaching and its effects. US-China Education Review B6. Yurdakul, I. K., Donmez,¨ O., Yaman, F., & Odabas¸ı, H. F. (t.y.) . Dijital ebeveynlik ve degis¸en˘ Roller1 digital parenting and changing roles. Vol. 15.

Yürektürk, F. N., & Cos¸kun, H. (2020). Türkçe o¨gretmenlerinin˘ teknoloji kullanımına ve teknoloji destekli Türkçe o¨gretiminin˘ etkililigine˘ dair gorüs¨¸leri. Ana Dili E˘gitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 986–1000.

Yu, L., & Shek, D. T. L. (2013). Internet addiction in Hong Kong adolescents: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 26(3), S10–S17.

11