Parental Digital Literacy:

Protecting Children from Online Risks

Sintaria Sembiring
Universitas Advent Indonesia Jl. Kolonel Masturi No.288, Bandung Barat
Fakultas Teknologi Informasi, Universitas Advent Indonesia
e-mail : [email protected]

Abstract
The rapid advancement of digital technology has transformed how children access and use the
internet, offering opportunities for learning and socialization while exposing them to risks such as
cyberbullying and harmful content. This study examines parental digital literacy across six dimensions:
knowledge of technology, security settings, usage policies, monitoring activities, communication, and risk
awareness. Data were collected from 179 mothers with children under 15 through structured
questionnaires. Findings reveal generational and educational disparities in digital literacy. Generation Y
demonstrated strong technological knowledge and security practices but lacked awareness of digital risks.
Generation Z excelled in monitoring activities but faced challenges in communication and usage policies,
while Generation X showed strength in communication and risk awareness but required improvement in
security settings and practical technology use. Educationally, mothers with advanced degrees had greater
knowledge and risk awareness but struggled with application skills, while those with lower education levels
exhibited lower proficiency overall. This study highlights the need for tailored interventions, including cross-
generational training and targeted educational programs, to address gaps in parental digital literacy. These
efforts aim to foster safer digital environments for children. Future research should explore socioeconomic
factors and evaluate the long-term impact of interventions to enhance digital parenting.
Keywords: Parental digital literacy, online safety, digital parenting, generational differences, child
protection

Literasi Digital Orang Tua:

Melindungi Anak dari Risiko Online

Abstrak
Perkembangan teknologi digital yang pesat telah mengubah cara anak-anak mengakses dan
menggunakan internet, menawarkan peluang untuk belajar dan bersosialisasi, namun juga membawa risiko
seperti perundungan siber dan paparan konten negatif. Penelitian ini menganalisis literasi digital orang tua
dalam enam dimensi: pengetahuan teknologi, pengaturan keamanan, kebijakan penggunaan, pemantauan
aktivitas, komunikasi, dan kesadaran risiko. Data dikumpulkan dari 179 ibu dengan anak di bawah usia 15
tahun melalui kuesioner terstruktur. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan literasi digital
berdasarkan generasi dan tingkat pendidikan. Generasi Y memiliki pengetahuan teknologi dan pengaturan
keamanan yang baik, tetapi kurang dalam kesadaran risiko. Generasi Z unggul dalam pemantauan aktivitas
anak, namun memiliki tantangan dalam kebijakan penggunaan dan komunikasi. Sementara itu, Generasi X
menunjukkan kekuatan dalam komunikasi dan kesadaran risiko, tetapi memerlukan peningkatan pada
pengaturan keamanan dan penerapan teknologi. Berdasarkan pendidikan, ibu dengan gelar lanjutan
memiliki pengetahuan dan kesadaran risiko yang lebih tinggi, namun kesulitan dalam keterampilan praktis,
sementara ibu dengan pendidikan lebih rendah menunjukkan kemampuan yang lebih terbatas. Penelitian
ini menekankan pentingnya intervensi yang terarah, seperti pelatihan lintas generasi dan program edukasi,
untuk meningkatkan literasi digital orang tua. Penelitian lanjutan perlu mengeksplorasi faktor sosial-

211
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

ekonomi dan dampak jangka panjang intervensi dalam meningkatkan pengasuhan digital yang aman bagi
anak-anak.
Kata Kunci: Literasi digital orang tua, keamanan online, pengasuhan digital, perbedaan generasi,
perlindungan anak.

1. Introduction
The rapid development of digital technology has significantly transformed various aspects of life,
including how children access and use the internet. The ease of access to digital devices and online
connectivity offers substantial opportunities for children to obtain information, learn, and engage in virtual
socialization. However, alongside these benefits, there are inherent safety risks for children. Online dangers,
such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, exposure to negative content, and internet addiction, pose
serious threats that parents must continuously address. According to data from Indonesia's Central
Statistics Agency (BPS) in 2022, 66.48% of children aged over five years had accessed the internet [1].
This statistic indicates that the penetration of digital technology has extended to children from an early
age. While the internet provides various benefits, inadequate supervision exposes children to heightened
vulnerabilities in the digital realm.
In this digital era, parents play a critical role in guiding their children in the use of technology. Research
has shown that parental digital literacy significantly influences their ability to oversee their children's online
activities. Studies by Chaudron et al. and Livingstone et al. found that higher levels of parental digital
literacy are associated with better protection of children from online risks and the promotion of safe
technology use [2] [3]. Digital literacy encompasses basic technological skills, understanding appropriate
online content, utilizing parental control tools, and knowledge of how to guide children in safe internet
practices [4] [5]. The level of parental digital literacy greatly impacts their effectiveness in providing
protection and guidance for their children’s internet use [6].
This study aims to analyze the level of parental digital literacy in protecting children from online threats
and to assess the extent to which parents possess digital literacy skills to implement effective educational
strategies. These strategies are intended to enhance parents' abilities to ensure their children’s online
safety. The findings of this research are expected to contribute to the literature on the importance of digital
literacy in parenting within the digital age. Furthermore, they may serve as a foundation for developing
more effective child protection policies for the internet.

2. Research Method
This study employs a quantitative approach aimed at measuring the level of parental digital literacy
through data collected using questionnaires. The objective is to provide a clear depiction of the current
state of parental digital literacy, particularly in the context of safeguarding children from online risks.
2.1 Research Instrument
This study aims to assess the level of digital literacy among parents in protecting their children from
the risks associated with gadget use and online activities. The research employs a survey instrument with
responses measured on a Likert scale. The instrument was developed and utilized based on references [7]
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] from several prior studies.
The study evaluates parental digital literacy across six dimensions: knowledge of technology, security
settings, gadget usage policies, monitoring of online activities, communication with children, and
understanding of risks. Each dimension is assessed using four questions. The survey questions are detailed
in Table 1.

212
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

Table 1 Survey Questions

No Dimension Questions
I Knowledge of Technology
1 A1 I understand how to use technological devices such as smartphones, tablets, or
computers.
2 A2 I know the applications, platforms, or social media my child frequently uses.
3 A3 I understand how the applications used by my child work.
4 A4 I stay updated on the latest technology and applications my child uses.
II Security Settings
1 B1 I know how to enable parental controls on the devices my child uses.
2 B2 I regularly check the security settings on my child's gadgets.
3 B3 I set passwords or PIN codes for my child's devices.
4 B4 I use specialized applications or software to monitor my child's online activities.
III Usage Policies
1 C1 I establish screen time limits for my child’s daily gadget usage.
2 C2 I strictly enforce rules regarding gadget use at home.
3 C3 I have specific rules about gadget and internet use for my child (e.g., no online
activity after a certain time).
4 C4 My child violates the gadget usage rules I have set.
IV Monitoring Activities
1 D1 I check my child’s gadget activities, browsing history, or online activities.
2 D2 I know with whom my child communicates online.
3 D3 I am aware of the content my child accesses on the internet.
4 D4 After monitoring their gadget/online activities, I discuss these activities with my
child.
V Communication with Children
1 E1 I talk to my child about gadget and internet use.
2 E2 My child feels comfortable discussing problems they face on the internet with me.
3 E3 I have a good quality of communication with my child regarding gadget use.
4 E4 My child openly shares their online experiences with me.
VI Understanding Risks
1 F1 I understand the risks my child faces online (e.g., cyberbullying, online predators,
negative content).
2 F2 I educate or explain to my child the dangers of the internet.
3 F3 I discuss internet safety topics with my child.
4 F4 I assess whether my child is prepared to handle risks from their online activities.

2.2 Sample
This study employed a quantitative approach with purposive sampling, selecting respondents who
were mothers with children under the age of 15. The questionnaire was distributed to participants in several
classes taught by the author. Class participants shared the questionnaire link with their contacts personally
and through WhatsApp groups.
Respondents completed the online questionnaire using the Google Form platform. Out of 198 total
respondents, only 179 responses were deemed valid. Seven respondents were excluded for not meeting
the criteria of having children under 15 years old, and the remaining invalid responses were excluded due
to inconsistent answers to control questions embedded in the questionnaire. Valid respondents came from
diverse educational backgrounds and generational groups. By generation, there were 53 respondents from

213
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

Generation X, 91 from Generation Y, and 35 from Generation Z. By education level, the respondents
included 73 with high school education, 89 with D3/bachelor's degrees, and 17 with master's degrees. The
demographic distribution of the respondents is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Demographic distribution of respondents
No Demography Number Percentage
I Age
Gen X 53 29,61%
Gen Y 91 50,84%
Gen Z 35 19,55%
II Education Background
High School 73 40,78%
Diploma/Bacherlor 89 49,72%
Master 17 9,50%
III Number of children under 15
1 104 58,10%
2 54 30,17%
3 17 9,50%
4 4 2,23%
Total 179 100,00%

2.3 Validity and Realibility Test

The validity test was conducted to ensure that each dimension in the research instrument has a
significant correlation with the total score. The calculated r-value (r-calculated) was compared to the critical
r-value (r-table) at a 5% significance level (α = 0.05) with 40 respondents. Based on the r-distribution
table, the critical r-value used was 0.312. The results of the validity test for each dimension are presented
in Table 3.
Table 3 Validity test

Dimension R-Calculated R-Table Description

Knowledge of Technology 0.621 0.312 Valid
Security Settings 0.612 0.312 Valid
Usage Policies 0.644 0.312 Valid
Monitoring Activities 0.715 0.312 Valid
Communication with Children 0.627 0.312 Valid
Understanding Risks 0.647 0.312 Valid

From the table above, all dimensions have an r-calculated value greater than the r-table value (0.312).
Therefore, all items in these dimensions are considered valid and can be used for measurement in this
study. The reliability test was conducted to assess the internal consistency of the research instrument for
each dimension using Cronbach's Alpha. The results are summarized and shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Reability test

Dimension Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Description [13]

Knowledge of Technology 0.859 Very Good
Security Settings 0.747 Acceptable
Usage Policies 0.746 Acceptable
Monitoring Activities 0.798 Good
Communication with Children 0.777 Good
Understanding Risks 0.767 Good

214
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

The reliability test of the research instrument, based on Cronbach's Alpha, demonstrates that the
instrument possesses good reliability across all dimensions. The "Knowledge of Technology" dimension,
with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.859, exhibits excellent reliability. This high value indicates strong internal
consistency among the items, suggesting they are closely related and effective in measuring technological
knowledge. The instrument for this dimension can reliably produce consistent results.
The "Security Settings" dimension has a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.747, which falls within the acceptable
range. This dimension demonstrates sufficient internal consistency to assess parents' ability to manage the
security of technological devices. However, there is room for improvement through minor revisions or
refinements to specific items. Similarly, the "Usage Policies" dimension, with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.746,
also displays acceptable reliability. Although reliable, slight adjustments to a few questions could enhance
its consistency.
The "Monitoring Activities" dimension achieves a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.798, reflecting good reliability.
This dimension is robust in assessing efforts to monitor children's online activities, with no significant
revisions required to improve its reliability. The "Communication with Children" dimension, with a
Cronbach's Alpha of 0.777, also demonstrates good internal consistency, indicating that the items
effectively measure the quality of communication between parents and children regarding technology use.
Finally, the "Understanding Risks" dimension, with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.767, also shows good
reliability. The items are well-suited to measure parents' understanding of online risks, though minor
improvements could be considered to further enhance reliability.
Overall, the Cronbach's Alpha values across all dimensions range from 0.746 to 0.859, indicating the
instrument's reliability is adequate to excellent. Dimensions with values exceeding 0.8, such as "Knowledge
of Technology" and "Monitoring Activities," demonstrate a high degree of reliability. Other dimensions,
despite having slightly lower values (0.746–0.777), remain within the acceptable range, making the
instrument generally suitable for use in the study. Small revisions to the dimensions with lower reliability
scores could further refine the instrument's quality.
3. Result and Discussion
3.1 Age at which Children Start using Gadgets
This study analyzed the age at which children are permitted to use gadgets, based on the generational
background of parents, as well as the trends in parental decision-making regarding gadget usage. The
research aims to illustrate the attitudes of parents from different generations (Generations X, Y, and Z) in
granting permission for their children to use gadgets and how the child's age influences these decisions.
The findings provide insights into generational differences and parental strategies in managing gadget use.
From the data presented in Table 5, it can be concluded that Generation X mothers show a higher
tendency to allow their children to use gadgets at the age of 7 to 11 years (12.85%) compared to other
age groups. Only 1.12% of Generation X mothers permit gadget use under the age of 3, indicating a more
conservative attitude toward early gadget exposure. Conversely, Generation Y mothers tend to be more
flexible, with the highest percentage permitting gadget use at 4 to 6 years (17.32%), followed by 7 to 11
years (14.53%). This generation also demonstrates a significant percentage (7.82%) permitting gadget
use under the age of 3, suggesting that some Generation Y parents are more open to early gadget
introduction.
Table 5 Distribution of age at which children are allowed to use gadgets based on parental age
Age Not Yet <=3 4-6 7 - 11 12 - 15 >15 Total
Gen X 0 0,00% 2 1,12% 12 6,70% 23 12,85% 15 8,38% 1 0,56% 53 29,61%
Gen Y 3 1,68% 14 7,82% 31 17,32% 26 14,53% 17 9,50% 0 0,00% 91 50,84%
Gen Z 4 2,23% 6 3,35% 3 1,68% 10 5,59% 10 5,59% 2 1,12% 35 19,55%
Total 7 3,91% 22 12,29% 46 25,70% 59 32,96% 42 23,46% 3 1,68% 179 100,00%

215
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

Generation Z mothers display a unique pattern with a relatively even distribution across age groups,
although the highest percentage is observed in the 7 to 11 years category (5.59%). They appear to be
more liberal in introducing gadgets at an early age, with 3.35% allowing usage under the age of 3.
Generation Y dominates decision-making regarding gadget use, accounting for 50.84% of the total
respondents, compared to Generation X (29.61%) and Generation Z (19.55%). This dominance suggests
that Generation Y parents are the primary decision-makers in this context. While Generation X generally
adopts a more conservative approach, they significantly influence the 7 to 11 years (12.85%) and 12 to 15
years (8.38%) age groups. On the other hand, Generation Z, representing only 19.55% of the total
respondents, demonstrates a more progressive and evenly distributed pattern in granting permission for
gadget use across age ranges.
The overall data shows diverse patterns of gadget use across age groups. Notably, the 7 to 11 years
age range emerges as the most common period for introducing gadget use, with a total percentage of
32.96%. This consistency across generations indicates that this age is widely considered the most
appropriate time for children to begin using gadgets. However, according to recommendations from the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), gadget use at this age should be closely monitored to ensure safety
and optimal benefits [14]. In contrast, only 12.29% of children under 3 years use gadgets, reflecting
increased parental awareness of the potential negative impacts of gadget use on early childhood
development. Both the AAP and the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommend strict limitations
or even prohibitions on gadget use at this age [15], [16].
For early adolescents (12–15 years), gadget use rises to 23.46%, reflecting the need to support
education and communication. However, experts warn that without adequate supervision, children in this
age group are vulnerable to risks such as addiction, exposure to inappropriate content, or cyberbullying
[17]. Therefore, while most mothers demonstrate an awareness of the potential dangers of gadget use,
targeted supervision is necessary, particularly for the 7–15 years age group, to fulfill the protective role of
parents in fostering healthy digital development for their children. This study reveals generational
differences in parental decision-making patterns regarding children's gadget use, aligning with previous
findings on parental attitudes toward technology for children. Generation X and Y parents tend to be more
cautious, granting permission for gadget use at older ages. This trend is consistent with the findings of
Livingstone and Helsper [17], who noted that parents with limited technological experience are more likely
to restrict their children's gadget use to mitigate the risks of exposure to inappropriate content. In contrast,
Generation Z parents exhibit a more even distribution across all age ranges, reflecting a more permissive
attitude. This aligns with Blum-Ross and Livingstone's research [18], which found that younger parents
often view technology as a tool to support learning and communication, particularly in an increasingly
digital ecosystem.
The general trend of introducing gadgets at ages 7 to 11 suggests that parents perceive this period
as suitable for leveraging technology for education, communication, or entertainment. This finding supports
previous study [19], which observed a significant rise in gadget use among primary school children due to
the increasing need for access to relevant information. However, while the proportion of gadget use among
children under three years old remains relatively small, attention should be given to its potential impact on
child development. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization (WHO)
warn that early exposure to screens may hinder social, emotional, and cognitive development [14] [15].
This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by highlighting generational patterns in parental
behavior regarding children's technology use. It also opens avenues for further analysis of how these
patterns are influenced by socioeconomic factors, educational levels, and parental awareness of the risks
and benefits of technology. These findings are consistent with prior study [20], that emphasized that
socioeconomic and educational factors play critical roles in household technology-related decisions.
In addition to analyzing the distribution of children’s ages at which gadget use is permitted based on
parental age, this study also examines the distribution according to the educational level of the parents.
The analysis aims to identify patterns in parental decision-making behavior regarding the introduction of

216
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

gadgets to children. The data on the age at which children are allowed to use gadgets, categorized by the
educational level of mothers, is presented in Table 6
Table 6 Distribution of age at which children are allowed to use gadgets based on parental education
Education Not Yet <=3 4-6 7 - 11 12 - 15 >15 Total
High School 4 2,23% 8 4,47% 13 7,26% 28 15,64% 20 11,17% 0 0,00% 73 40,78%
Diploma/Bachelor 3 1,68% 13 7,26% 26 14,53% 24 13,41% 20 11,17% 3 1,68% 89 49,72%
Master 0 0,00% 1 0,56% 7 3,91% 7 3,91% 2 1,12% 0 0,00% 17 9,50%
Total 7 3,91% 22 12,29% 46 25,70% 59 32,96% 42 23,46% 3 1,68% 179 100,00%

The analysis of the data in Table 6 reveals significant trends in parental decision-making regarding the
age at which children are permitted to use gadgets, categorized by the educational level of mothers. Parents
with varying levels of education demonstrate distinct patterns in granting gadget access to their children.
Parents with a high school education represent the largest proportion (40.78%) of the sample. This
research found that they are most likely to permit gadget use for children aged 7 to 11 years (15.64%),
with a smaller proportion allowing usage for children aged 12 to 15 years (11.17%). Only 4.47% of parents
in this category allow children under three years old to use gadgets, indicating a relatively cautious
approach for younger ages. In contrast, parents with a bachelor's degree comprise the majority of the
sample (49.72%) and show a relatively balanced distribution across age groups. They exhibit a higher
tendency to allow children aged 4 to 6 years to use gadgets (14.53%), followed by 7 to 11 years (13.41%).
Interestingly, 7.26% of this group permits gadget use for children under three years old, reflecting a slightly
more lenient attitude compared to parents with high school education. Parents with a master's degree, who
constitute the smallest proportion of the sample (9.50%), display the most conservative approach. They
predominantly permit gadget use for children aged 4 to 6 years (3.91%) and 7 to 11 years (3.91%). Only
0.56% of parents in this group allow gadget use for children under three years old, indicating heightened
caution towards early exposure to technology.
The findings align with prior studies, such as Kabali et al. [21], which observed that higher parental
education levels are associated with more structured and cautious approaches to children's gadget use.
Parents with advanced degrees often emphasize the potential developmental risks of early screen exposure,
consistent with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health
Organization (WHO) [22] [15]. However, the current study contrasts with Blum-Ross and Livingstone [23],
which suggested that educated parents increasingly view technology as a tool for early learning. While this
study corroborates the cautiousness among highly educated parents, it also highlights that those with
bachelor's degrees are more open to introducing gadgets for younger children, potentially influenced by
the growing integration of technology into educational environments. The results underscore the
importance of tailoring parental education programs on digital literacy to align with varying levels of
parental education. Awareness campaigns emphasizing the developmental impacts of early gadget use
could be particularly targeted at parents with lower educational levels, who are less cautious about early
exposure.
3.2 Measurement of Parental Digital Literacy
Parental digital literacy is a critical factor in understanding how parents guide and protect their children
in the digital era. In this study, parental digital literacy is measured through a structured questionnaire
designed to assess six key dimensions: knowledge of technology, security settings, gadget usage policies,
monitoring activities, communication with children, and understanding of online risks. Each dimension
consists of a set of questions aimed at evaluating specific competencies and behaviors that contribute to
effective digital parenting. The questionnaire utilizes a Likert scale, allowing respondents to indicate their
level of agreement or frequency of specific behaviors. The results of survey shown in Table 7. From the
data presented, Generation Y demonstrates the highest average score in technological knowledge (4.08),
surpassing both Generation X (3.89) and Generation Z (4.02). The small standard deviations across all
generations, with the lowest observed in Generation Z (0.06), indicate relatively uniform knowledge levels.
However, the sub-dimension of technological application skills (A4) exhibits the lowest scores among all

217
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

generations, with Generation X scoring the lowest (3.75). This highlights the need for additional training to
improve the practical application of technology. These findings align with Gui et al. [24], who argue that
younger generations (Y and Z) tend to have superior digital literacy compared to older generations (X),
particularly in understanding technology. In security settings, Generation Y again records the highest
average score (4.13), followed by Generation Z (4.07) and Generation X (3.80). However, Generation X
shows high variability in security practices, as evidenced by a large standard deviation in the sub-dimension
of security application (B2) at 1.16. This inconsistency suggests challenges in mastering digital security
settings. The results are consistent with van Deursen and van Dijk [25], who noted that older generations
often struggle to fully understand digital security aspects.
Generation Y also leads in gadget usage policies, with an average score of 3.90, while Generation
X lags slightly behind with an average score of 3.74. The weakest performance is observed in Generation
X for the sub-dimension of screen time policies (C4), with the lowest score of 2.60. This finding is in line
with Livingstone et al. [26], who reported that older generations often face difficulties in establishing
effective screen time rules. Generation Z demonstrates the highest proficiency in monitoring children's
activities, with an average score of 4.08, followed closely by Generation Y (4.06) and Generation X (3.94).
The sub-dimension of online activity monitoring (D3) reflects strong engagement from Generation Z, with
the highest score of 4.23. This finding aligns with Helsper and Eynon [27], who noted that younger
generations are more proactive in supervising their children's digital activities, likely due to their greater
familiarity with digital tools and platforms. Generation X excels in communication with children, achieving
the highest average score of 4.02. In contrast, Generation Z records the lowest overall score (3.91),
particularly in the sub-dimension of sensitivity to children's communication (E1), with a score of 3.77. This
decline suggests a need for Generation Z parents to adopt more empathetic approaches to communication.
These findings are consistent with the report by Blum-Ross and Livingstone [18], which highlights the
necessity for more targeted communication strategies among parents who are themselves immersed in
digital ecosystems.
Table 7 Parental digital literacy based on age
No Dimensions Gen X Gen Y Gen Z
Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
I Knowledge of Technology 3,89 0,11 4,08 0,10 4,02 0,06
1 A1 4,00 0,78 3,98 0,76 4,03 0,57
2 A2 3,94 0,79 4,21 0,64 4,03 0,71
3 A3 3,87 0,76 4,08 0,67 4,09 0,66
4 A4 3,75 0,83 4,05 0,69 3,94 0,68
II Security Settings 3,80 0,05 4,13 0,13 4,07 0,09
1 B1 3,77 0,91 4,13 0,64 4,03 0,71
2 B2 3,75 1,16 4,25 0,78 4,03 1,01
3 B3 3,79 0,99 4,19 0,77 4,20 0,72
4 B4 3,87 0,81 3,96 0,89 4,03 0,75
III Usage Policy 3,74 0,77 3,90 0,79 3,81 0,71
1 C1 4,19 0,88 4,27 0,70 4,26 0,85
2 C2 3,91 0,99 4,25 0,64 4,06 0,87
3 C3 4,25 0,68 4,36 0,57 4,17 0,86
4 C4 2,60 1,10 2,71 0,95 2,74 1,36
IV Activity Monitoring 3,94 0,14 4,06 0,14 4,08 0,16
1 D1 3,81 1,04 4,10 0,90 4,06 0,91
2 D2 4,04 0,78 4,09 0,69 4,17 0,75
3 D3 4,09 0,60 4,20 0,60 4,23 0,65
4 D4 3,83 0,98 3,87 0,95 3,86 1,00
V Communication with Children 4,02 0,07 4,01 0,05 3,91 0,09
1 E1 3,98 0,97 4,07 0,85 3,77 1,00
2 E2 3,94 0,77 3,98 0,70 3,94 0,97
3 E3 4,06 0,69 4,03 0,59 3,94 0,80
4 E4 4,09 0,69 3,97 0,62 3,97 0,82
VI Understanding Risk 4,11 0,30 4,01 0,33 3,95 0,11
1 F1 4,26 0,84 4,23 0,76 4,06 0,76

218
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

2 F2 4,43 0,82 4,32 0,81 4,03 0,82

3 F3 4,00 0,98 3,88 0,96 3,83 0,86
4 F4 3,75 1,04 3,60 0,85 3,89 0,76

Generation X also leads in risk awareness, with the highest average score of 4.11, underscoring their
heightened understanding of potential digital dangers. In contrast, Generation Y records the lowest score
in the sub-dimension of gadget risk awareness (F4), with an average of 3.60. This observation supports
the findings of van Deursen et al. [28], which emphasize that educational attainment and practical
experience significantly influence individuals' awareness of technological risks. Generation Y excels in
technological knowledge and security settings but demonstrates a relative weakness in awareness of the
risks associated with gadget use. In contrast, Generation Z stands out in monitoring children's activities but
requires improvement in establishing gadget usage policies and fostering effective communication with
their children. Generation X shows strength in communication and understanding risks but needs
enhancement in security settings and the practical application of technology.
To address these generational differences, cross-generational training programs are recommended.
These programs should focus on improving security settings for Generation X and developing robust gadget
usage policies for Generation Z. Additionally, education on screen-time policies should be targeted at both
Generation X and Z to enhance awareness of the importance of limiting screen time. A particular emphasis
should be placed on Generation Z, guiding them to adopt empathetic communication strategies with their
children. By implementing these tailored approaches, parents across all generations can be better equipped
to safeguard their children from the potential dangers of gadgets and online activities, fostering a safer
and more responsible digital environment. This study also analyzes mothers' digital literacy capabilities in
protecting their children from the dangers of gadget use and online activities, categorized by educational
level. The data, as presented in Table 8, highlights distinct trends across different levels of education.
Mothers with a higher level of education (Master’s degree) exhibit the highest scores in technological
knowledge (4.24) compared to those with Bachelor’s/Diploma degrees (4.07) and High School
education (3.89). These findings align with Gui et al. [24], who found that digital literacy is positively
correlated with educational attainment, as individuals with higher education often have better access to
resources and technological training. However, further analysis reveals a lower score for the sub-dimension
of technological application skills (A4) among mothers with Master’s degrees (3.94) compared to those with
Bachelor’s/Diploma degrees (4.02). This supports the findings of van Deursen and van Dijk [25], who noted
that while individuals with higher education levels generally have a better understanding of technology,
they often lack the practical skills needed for day-to-day applications.Interestingly, the standard deviation
of technological knowledge among mothers with Master’s degrees (0.22) is higher than that of other
groups, indicating greater variability in competency levels. This observation aligns with Helsper and Eynon
[27], who suggested that digital literacy is not solely influenced by education but also by factors such as
personal experience, social environment, and age. These results emphasize the need for practical, relevant
technological application training, even for those with advanced educational qualifications. In terms
of security settings, mothers with Bachelor’s/Diploma degrees scored the highest average (4.05) with the
lowest standard deviation (0.07), indicating consistent understanding and application of security measures.
In contrast, mothers with Master’s degrees scored lower on average (3.76), particularly in data security
practices. This finding is consistent with van Deursen and van Dijk’s [25] research, which highlighted that
higher education does not always guarantee adequate practical security skills.
For gadget usage policies, mothers with Bachelor’s/Diploma degrees again outperformed others, with
the highest average score (3.90), while those with Master’s degrees scored the lowest (3.68). Across all
educational levels, the sub-dimension of screen time policies revealed particularly low scores, especially for
mothers with Master’s degrees (2.41). This underscores the need to raise awareness about the importance
of screen time restrictions, corroborating findings by Livingstone et al. [26], which showed that parents
often struggle to enforce effective screen time limits regardless of their education.
Table 8 Parental digital literacy based on education
No Dimension High School Diploma/Bachelor Master

219
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std

I Knowledge of Technology 3,89 0,07 4,07 0,05 4,24 0,22
1 A1 3,82 0,63 4,04 0,80 4,47 0,51
2 A2 3,99 0,59 4,15 0,81 4,29 0,59
3 A3 3,90 0,65 4,07 0,75 4,24 0,56
4 A4 3,85 0,68 4,02 0,75 3,94 0,90
II Security Settings 4,01 0,13 4,05 0,07 3,89 0,07
1 B1 3,85 0,76 4,12 0,74 4,06 0,75
2 B2 4,08 0,94 4,10 1,01 3,76 0,90
3 B3 4,14 0,63 4,01 1,01 4,12 0,78
4 B4 3,96 0,73 3,98 0,90 3,71 0,92
III Usage Policy 3,78 0,83 3,90 0,71 3,68 0,88
1 C1 4,15 0,81 4,33 0,70 4,24 1,03
2 C2 4,18 0,63 4,12 0,84 3,76 1,25
3 C3 4,26 0,67 4,31 0,65 4,29 0,77
4 C4 2,55 1,11 2,85 1,07 2,41 0,87
IV Activity Monitoring 4,00 0,17 4,07 0,11 3,94 0,17
1 D1 3,92 0,98 4,10 0,92 3,88 0,93
2 D2 4,14 0,69 4,08 0,79 3,94 0,56
3 D3 4,15 0,59 4,19 0,64 4,18 0,53
4 D4 3,79 1,05 3,92 0,86 3,76 1,09
V Communication with 3,96 0,09 4,01 0,09 4,03 0,16
Children
1 E1 3,82 1,11 4,13 0,74 3,88 0,78
2 E2 4,01 0,68 3,92 0,86 3,94 0,75
3 E3 4,01 0,51 3,99 0,76 4,24 0,66
4 E4 4,00 0,65 4,00 0,72 4,06 0,66
VI Understanding Risk 3,96 0,29 4,07 0,26 4,10 0,41
1 F1 4,00 0,82 4,31 0,73 4,53 0,72
2 F2 4,33 0,78 4,27 0,85 4,29 0,92
3 F3 3,88 0,96 3,91 0,95 4,00 0,94
4 F4 3,63 0,96 3,79 0,85 3,59 0,87

In monitoring children’s activities, mothers with Bachelor’s/Diploma degrees achieved the highest
average score (4.07), whereas those with Master’s degrees scored lower (3.94). The sub-dimension of
activity monitoring revealed similar trends, with the lowest score recorded for mothers with Master’s
degrees (3.76). This reduced engagement may be attributed to factors such as professional commitments
or a lower prioritization of direct monitoring, as suggested by Helsper and Eynon [27].
Regarding communication with children, mothers across all educational levels demonstrated strong
communication abilities, with average scores exceeding 4.00. Mothers with Master’s degrees achieved the
highest score in technology-based communication (4.24), supporting Gui et al.’s [24] assertion that
individuals with higher education levels are more adept at utilizing technology for communication purposes.
Finally, in risk awareness, a positive trend correlates with educational level, with mothers holding
Master’s degrees scoring the highest average (4.10). However, the sub-dimension of gadget risk awareness
received low scores across all education levels, particularly among mothers with Master’s degrees (3.59).
These findings highlight the need for targeted educational approaches to enhance risk awareness, as
emphasized by Blum-Ross and Livingstone [18].
4. Conclusion
This study presents a detailed examination of parental digital literacy and its vital role in safeguarding
children from the risks associated with gadgets and online activities. The findings highlight notable
generational and educational disparities in digital literacy, offering significant insights into improving
parental guidance in the digital age. Generation Y demonstrates strong technological knowledge and
proficiency in security settings, showcasing their adaptability to digital tools. However, their limited
awareness of online risks reflects the need for greater understanding of digital dangers [29]. Generation Z
excels in monitoring children’s activities, reflecting proactive engagement with digital tools, but struggles
with establishing robust gadget usage policies and fostering empathetic communication [27]. In contrast,

220
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

Generation X shows strength in communication and risk awareness but requires improvement in applying
security practices and practical technological skills.
The educational dimension also plays a significant role in shaping digital literacy capabilities. Parents
with Master’s degrees demonstrate advanced knowledge of technology and risk awareness but face
challenges in practical application skills and enforcing screen time policies. Those with Bachelor’s/Diploma
degrees exhibit balanced competencies, particularly in security settings and activity monitoring, while
parents with high school education generally display lower proficiency, particularly in technological
knowledge and monitoring activities (Gui et al., 2017) [1]. These findings underscore the critical need for
targeted educational programs to address these gaps and empower parents across all educational levels
to navigate digital challenges effectively.
To address these disparities, cross-generational training programs are essential, focusing on improving
security practices for Generation X, strengthening gadget usage policies for Generation Z, and enhancing
risk awareness for Generation Y. For parents with higher education, practical training should emphasize
applying technological skills, while foundational digital literacy programs should target those with lower
educational levels [23]. Furthermore, public awareness campaigns are vital to educate parents about
developmental risks associated with early screen exposure and the importance of screen time limitations,
as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization [22]
[15].
This study contributes significantly to the literature on digital parenting by identifying critical areas for
improvement and providing actionable recommendations to enhance parental digital literacy. Policymakers
and educators should utilize these findings to develop accessible resources and interventions tailored to
the diverse needs of parents across generations and educational backgrounds. By equipping parents with
the necessary skills and knowledge, these efforts can foster a safer and more responsible digital
environment for children.
Future research should examine the influence of socioeconomic factors on parental digital literacy,
exploring how income levels and access to digital resources impact parents' ability to guide their children
in the digital realm. Longitudinal studies are needed to provide a deeper understanding of how parental
digital literacy evolves over time and its long-term implications for children’s online behavior and safety.
Additionally, the effectiveness of tailored training programs and digital literacy interventions should be
investigated to address generational and educational disparities. Expanding the scope of research to include
fathers, guardians, and other caregivers will offer a more comprehensive understanding of family dynamics
in digital parenting.

References

[1] S. Tri and M. Karmila, Statistik Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik, 2022.
[2] C. Stephane, D. G. Rosanna and M. Gemo, Young children (0-8) and digital technology, Europe:
European Union, 2018.
[3] L. Sonia, H. Leslie, G. Anke and Ó. Kjartan, "Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of
European Children. Full FINDINGS," London School of Economics and Political Science, 2011.
[4] H. A. Naufal, "LITERASI DIGITAL," Jurnal Perspektif, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 195-202, 2021.
[5] N. Peter and J. Jeroen, "Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children's internet
use," Learning Media and Technology, vol. 39, no. 2, 2014.
[6] I. N. Handayani, "Peran Orang Tua pada Pengenalan Literasi Digital untuk Anak Usia Dini di Era
Teknologi Digital," in Proceedings of The 6 th Annual Conference on Islamic Early Childhood
Education, , Yogyakarta, 2022.

221
Jurnal TeIKa, Volume 14, Nomor 2, Oktober 2024

[7] R. Vuorikari, Y. Punie, S. Carretero G. and G. Van den Brande, "DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence
Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model.," Publication Office of
the European Union, 2016.
[8] N. T. Maserumule, "Parent’s Use of Strategies to Monitor Children’s Activities Online," Open Journal
of Social Sciences, 2020, 8, , vol. 8, pp. 506-536 , 2020.
[9] S. Livingstone, K. Ólafsson, E. J. Helsper, F. Lupiáñez-Villanueva, G. A. Veltri and F. Folkvord,
"Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Risks for Children Online: The Role of Digital Skills in
Emerging Strategies of Parental Mediation," Journal of Communication, vol. 67, p. 82–105.
[10] "Digital Media and Information Literacy Framework," 2018.
[11] Ł. Tomczyk and K. Potyrała, "Parents’ knowledge and skills about the risks of the digital world," outh
African Journal of Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2021.
[12] F. Nascimbeni, "Digital literacy for children: exploring definitions and frameworks," UNICEF Office of
Global Insight and Policy, 2019.
[13] J. C. Nunnally, "Psychometric Theor," 1978.
[14] C. O. C. A. MEDIA, M. David Hill, M. Nusheen Ameenuddin, M. Yolanda (Linda) Reid Chassiakos, M.
Corinn Cross, M. Jeffrey Hutchinson, M. Alanna Levine, M. Rhea Boyd, M. Robert Mendelson, M.
Megan Moreno and M. Wendy Sue Swanson, "Media and Young Minds," Pediatrics, vol. 138, p. 5,
2016.
[15] W. H. Organization, Guidelines on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Sleep for Children Under
5 Years of Age, Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2019.
[16] S. Domingues-Montanari, "Clinical and psychological effects of excessive screen time on children,"
vol. 15, pp. 16-21, 2017.
[17] L. Sonia and H. Ellen, "Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of
online skills and internet self-efficacy," Sage Journals, vol. 12, no. 2, 2009.
[18] S. L. Natalia Blum-Ross, "Sharenting, privacy and the dynamics of managing children’s online
identities," Media, Culture & Society, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1123-1140, 2018.
[19] K. K. Hilda, M. I. Matilde, N.-D. Rosemary, G. B. Jennifer, H. M. Sweta, P. L. Kristin and L. B. J. 1.
Robert, "Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children," Pediatrics, vol. 136, no. 6,
p. 1044–1050., 2015.
[20] A. V. Elizabeth, J. R. Victoria, A. ,. W. Ellen, H. Xuan, H. L. June and S. Mi-suk, "Digital childhood:
electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers," Pediatrics, vol. 119,
no. 5, p. e1006–e1015, 2007.
[21] R. S. Kabali, M. M. Irigoyen, T. Nunez-Davis, J. G. Budacki, S. H. Mohanty, K. P. Leister and R. L.
Bonner, "Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children," Pediatrics, vol. 136, no. 6,
p. 1044–1050, 12 2015.
[22] A. A. o. Pediatrics, "Media and Young Mind," Pediatrics, vol. 138, no. 5, 11 2016.
[23] A. G. Blum-Ross and S. M. Livingstone, Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears about
Technology Shape Children's Lives, Oxford University Press, 2020.
[24] G. Alessandro, F. Giuseppe and C. Stefano, "Digital skills and the role of higher education: A
longitudinal study," Computers & Education, vol. 145, p. 103731, 2020.
[25] A. J. V. Deursen and J. A. V. Dijk, "The digital divide shifts to differences in usage," New Media &
Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 507-526, 2014.
[26] M. Livingstone, S. Ólafsdóttir, A. Stoilova, L. P. Carr, R. C. d. Haan and J. F. K. S., "Parenting for a
Digital Future: Survey Report," 2017.
[27] E. J. Helsper and R. Eynon, "Digital natives: where is the evidence?," British Educational Research
Journal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 503-520, 2010.

222
 Parental Digital Literacy:
Protecting Children from Online Risks

[28] E. v. Deursen, J. v. Dijk and P. v. Dijk, "Digital inequality in skills and uses among the young elderly,"
New Media & Society, vol. 23, no. 7, p. 1840–1860, 2021.
[29] M. Gui, L. Fasoli and A. Carradore, "Digital skills of Internet natives: Different forms of digital literacy
in the transition to higher education," Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 139–
163, 3 2017.

223