Parent perspectives on young children’s changing digital practices: Insights from Covid-19

Abstract

Young children’s use of digital technologies has presented challenges for parents, particularly in response to an increased reliance on digital resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. This mixed-methods study explored young children’s digital practices within the context of their families and homes. Although this study was originally planned, the timing of data collection meant that it was uniquely positioned to capture parent perspectives as the pandemic and first lockdown was unfolding in Australia. Data was collected through questionnaire (N = 101) and semistructured interview (n = 20) about status and change in children’s digital practices, and parents’ rules and flexibility in governing these experiences. Quantitative findings suggested children’s frequency and duration of digital device use trended upwards during lockdown, and parents were more flexible in their rules about the amount of screen time, as well as when and where children could use digital devices. Qualitative results suggested that, more than a temporary and situational change, for many parents, exposure to new ways of engaging with digital technologies facilitated a shift in their perceptions, leading to greater consideration of quality in their choices for their children. This study highlights the influential role of parents in shaping children’s digital experiences. Understanding their perceptions, as well as children’s current and shifting digital practices in the home, is important for informing efforts and guidance for supporting young children’s safe and effective use of digital technologies.

Young children and digital technologies

Digital technologies are increasingly ubiquitous in homes across the globe. Young children witness family members engaging with various digital technologies and online platforms, and are increasingly presented with opportunities to engage and interact with digital devices and content (Huber et al., 2018). Modern digital technologies such as tablets and smartphones have redesigned the ways children interact with digital content, and have been the subject of recommendations derived from the various, and at times conflicting, perspectives of child development, health and education (Straker et al., 2018). These different perspectives have caused contradiction, confusion, and even guilt for some parents. For example, parents often feel pressure to limit their child’s screen time by adhering to international guidelines (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2018). At the same time, parents feel the need to support their child in becoming digitally proficient, as this is perceived to be important for children’s futures and participation in their communities (Kervin et al., 2018).

The types of digital resources that children have access to and how they use them is largely shaped by their parents, families, and the socio-cultural context of their homes (Marsh et al., 2017; Plowman, 2015). Socio-demographic factors such as parent education and household income are associated with children’s access to digital devices, digital skills and knowledge, and overall time spent using digital technologies in the home (Rideout, 2017) - as are other parent factors such as are parenting style, parent’s own use of digital technology, and parent’s attitudes and beliefs about the role of digital technology in children’s lives (Konok et al., 2020; Lauricella et al., 2015). Wider socio-cultural influences such as international screen time guidelines (e.g. Council on Communications and Media et al., 2016) also contribute to parent’s decisions about the use of digital technologies at home. Parents typically govern their child’s use of digital technologies by establishing rules and limits around access to digital resources, the amount of screen time, as well regulating the digital content they can engage with, and the purpose for which it is used (Dias et al., 2016). Most often, in early childhood, the choice to use digital technologies in the home setting is made by parents for various reasons such as encouraging play, creativity and learning, as well as a means of occupying children so parents can attend to other demands, or to create ‘quiet time’ (Marsh et al., 2015).

The Covid-19 pandemic and increasing reliance on digital technologies

Although the role of technology in children’s lives has generated much interest in the literature and popular media for decades, this has intensified in response to the recent and ongoing Covid-19 global pandemic (e.g. Vanderloo et al., 2020). Aside from the direct impact of the illness, the pandemic has caused continuing disruption to families, and their routines and activities. In the absence of face-to-face social interactions, and limitations on movements outside the home, families in lockdown were increasingly relying on digital technologies to work, learn and communicate (Goldschmidt, 2020), with some of these changes likely to sustain beyond formal lockdown periods as workplaces and education evolves. School-aged children participated in online learning, and preschools too were connecting with their children digitally (Stites et al., 2021). Consequently, this increased digital reliance intensified existing concerns about children’s screen-time, such as its impact on sedentary behaviour and poor health outcomes (Guan et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2021).

Early on after the onset of the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2020) released a statement acknowledging children’s screen time was likely to increase. This has since been empirically supported internationally. For example, Kharel et al. (2022) systematically reviewed the literature on children’s movement behaviours during the Covid-19 lockdowns, which included children’s use of screen-based electronic devices. All 31 reviewed studies (from Europe, Asia, North and South America, UK and Australia) reported increases in their use. Although for school-aged children, increases were likely associated with school requirements, similar findings have also been reported for toddlers and pre-schoolers (Bergmann et al., 2022; Carroll et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2020). For example, one study of more than 3000 parents of young children (aged 1–5) reported average daily screen time almost doubled during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, to an average of 3 hours daily (Aguilar-Farias et al., 2021).

Beyond the time spent in front of the screen, however, little is known about the nature of young children’s digital experiences, particularly in the context of increased reliance on devices necessitated by the the pandemic lockdown. Prepandemic findings show that much of young children’s screen time was spent watching programmes on television, or with video streaming apps such as YouTube Kids and Netflix (Huber et al., 2018; Radesky et al., 2020), however children also interacted with digital technologies in various other ways, such as taking photographs, playing games, and socially connecting (Radesky et al., 2020). Because the pandemic brought about such significant change and challenge for families, including an increasing reliance on digital technologies, it can be expected that not only screen time, but also the nature of children’s digital activity and parents’ faciliation of experiences, have been changing. Any changes, which are likely to be influenced by a range of factors such as pressures on parents to manage competing demands (e.g. working from home and additional childcare responsibilities) and increased time in the home, are not well understood. Studying children’s digital experiences and parent’s facilitation of these, beyond the amount of screen time, has implications for furthering understandings about the developmental benefits (or hindrances) of digital technologies, and can inform parent and practitioner guidance for ensuring quality and safety in children’s digital experiences.

The current study

This study forms part of a larger Australian Government-funded project examining the digital practices of preschool aged children (3–5 years). Data collection for this study unexpectedly conincided with the first wave of Coronavirus in Australia. Although this study was originally planned, the timing meant that it was uniquely positioned to capture and examine parent perspectives as the pandemic was unfolding, with minor adjustments to the pre-existing protocol. This study captured quantitative and qualitative data from parents of Australian children regarding their digital practices and perceptions for the time before and during lockdown, to answer the following research questions: (1) How did children’s digital practices change during Covid-19 lockdown? and (2) How did parents facilitate and govern children’s digital experiences? Using a mixed methods design, we identified quantitative trends using questionnaire, and explored these further by collecting data from semi-structured interviews with a subsample of participants.

Method

Study context

Data for this study was collected during the first wave of Covid-19 in New South Wales (NSW), Australia (April–May 2020). During this time, Australia was in lockdown and stay-at-home orders were enforced. Public playgrounds and facilities were closed and, where possible, adults were advised to work from home. Although schools and early education centres remained open, parents and carers were encouraged to keep their school-aged children at home, except for children whose parents worked for essential services. Early education centres were considered essential services which continued operating with risk mitigation measures, however attendance was low, with around 50% of parents choosing to keep their children at home (Baxter, 2020).

Design

Digital technologies are ubiquitous in children’s lives (Marsh et al., 2017), and their experiences with these are embedded in and shaped by the sociocultural context of their homes (Kumpulainen et al., 2020). Understanding these contexts and how they influence children’s digital experiences is complex. Although much literature has been dedicated to screen time, very few studies have examined children’s digital practices (which includes but is not limited to screen time) and how these are situated within the complexities of the home environment. To help explore this complexity, this study utilised a sequential-explanatory mixed-methods design (Ivankova et al., 2006). Specifically, quantitative data was captured (via questionnaire) to identify the main trends in children’s digital practices across a larger cohort, and subsequently qualitative data was captured (via interview) from a subsample to further interrogate the main trends identified, by exploring the contextualised and nuanced experiences of families. The findings from each phase were juxtaposed and integrated in the results to facilitate greater depth in understanding (Fetters et al., 2013).

Participants

Participants were 101 parents of children aged 3–5 years who completed the questionnaire in response to: an email sent out to members of a children’s museum situated on a University campus on the south coast of NSW; or a social media post targeting parents living in the surrounding suburbs. All participants completed the questionnaire, and a subsample of these (n = 20) also took part in a subsequent individual semi-structured interview conducted by telephone or video conference (Zoom).

Of the participants who responded, 94.2% were mothers and the remaining were fathers (5.8%). Parents had a mean age of 35.91 (SD = 4.87, ranging 26–52 years), and were highly educated, with 65.4% (n = 66) having at least a bachelor’s degree (n = 31 with postgraduate), and 26.7% (n = 27) with vocational training. Focus children had a mean age of 4.21 years, ranging 3.00–5.99 years (SD = 0.66). Nearly half were female (48.5%, n = 49). At the time of data collection, all but two children were enrolled in a long daycare or preschool programme (90.1%, n = 91) or in their first year of formal schooling (7.9%, n = 8). Of these children enrolled in an education programme, 58.6% (n = 58) were not currently attending due to the pandemic at the time of the questionnaire.

In almost three-quarters of families (n = 70; 70.8%), at least one parent was continuing their employment duties from home, slightly higher than the larger Australian population at the time (Hand et al., 2020). The questionnaire did not ask about older siblings engaging in remote learning for school, however nine of the 20 interview participants (45%) reported also having at least one older child absent from school and engaging in online learning. Table 1 provides demographic data and details about the Covid-19 disruptions for questionnaire and interview participants.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics and Covid-19 disruptions for questionnaire respondents (N = 101) and semi-structured interview participants (n = 20).

	Questionnaire (N = 101)		Interview (n = 20)
	n	%	n	%
Educational attainment
Postgraduate University Degree	31	30.7	11	55.0
Undergraduate University Degree	35	34.7	7	35.0
Vocational training	27	26.7	2	10.0
High School or less	8	7.9	0	0.0
Employment status
Full-time	25	24.8	0	0.0
Part-time	50	49.5	10	50.0
Not currently employed	26	25.7	10	50.0
Child
Female	49	48.5	10	50.0
Education (currently enrolled in)
ECE programme (preschool, long-day care, home-based day care)	91	90.1	19	95.0
Kindergarten (first year of formal schooling)	8	7.9	1	5.0
None	2	2.0	0	0.0
Family/home
English speaking	94	93.1	19	95.0
Dual parent home	95	94.1	20	100.0
Number children living in the home
1	17	16.8	6	30.0
2	59	58.4	9	45.0
3 or more	25	24.8	5	25.0
Gross family income >$90,000	65	83.9	19	95.0
Covid-19 family disruptions
Child not attending enrolled ECE/School	58	58.6	18	90.0
At least one parent working from home	70	70.8	10	50.0
Sibling/s engaged in remote learning	-	-	9	45.0

The qualitative sample (n = 20) are a subsample of the quantitative sample (N = 101). ‘Sibling/s engaged in remote learning’ was not included in the questionnaire but emerged as strongly connected to younger children’s digital practices in the qualitative analysis and therefore recorded here.

Questionnaire

Participants responded to an online questionnaire delivered through Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics, 2019). Informed by the Activity Theory framework (Engeström, 1993), the questionnaire, which has previously been used to explore the social influences of teachers’ use of technology (Kervin et al., 2013), was modified to suit a home context. Additional questions were also added to enable a more detailed description of parents’ perspectives about children’s digital practices at home during lockdown, and retrospectively for the recent prior-to-lockdown period. Underpinning the Activity Theory framework is the premise that human activity is a complex interaction between individuals and their surroundings (Verenikina, 2010), and that the activity (digital or non-digital) that takes place is influenced by other social and cultural factors within the context in which it occurs. As such, the questionnaire included questions related to: (1) children’s digital practices – access to digital devices, and the frequency and duration of children’s interactions with these; (2) parental mediation – their rules about digital technologies and their flexibility in these rules; and (3) basic child and parent demographics such as age, gender, parent education, and income, as well as Covid-19-imposed disruptions such as current preschool enrolment and attendance, and whether parents were working from home. Parents with more than one child within the target age range were asked to respond for only one child.

Data on children’s digital practices were collected through a series of questions about children’s access to, as well as the frequency (number of days per week) and duration of use (number of minutes per day used) for six prevalent screen-based devices: television, iPad or tablet, iPhone or smartphone, computer, connected games console (e.g. Playstation), and portable games console (e.g. Nintendo Switch). These devices were included based on findings of past studies and have previously been used to define ‘screen-media’ in other large survey studies (Huber et al., 2018; Kabali et al., 2015). Because the affordances of these devices are varied, as is the nature of the experiences they offer, we examined children’s digital practices by device. Parents were asked to respond to questions for the past week, and a typical week before lockdown. Parents completed the questionnaire at varied points over the course of 1 month, and therefore retrospective recall period for prior-to-lockdown reports varied between 2 and 6 weeks. Because children’s digital practices are largely governed by parents, participants were asked to indicate whether (yes/no) they had rules about: (i) the amount of screen time their child was allowed; (ii) the digital content they allowed their child to engage with; (iii) when their child was allowed to use digital devices; and (iv) where their child was allowed to use digital devices. Where rules were present, flexibility in each rule was examined by asking ‘Are there ever any exceptions to this rule?’ with responses options along a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (‘never’) to 3 (‘often’). Parents were asked to respond to these items for the past week, and for prior-to-lockdown.

Semi-structured interview

The purpose of the semi-structured interview was to contextualise and elaborate the main trends identified from initial analysis of the questionnaire responses. Interviews were conducted by telephone or videoconferencing by one member of the research team. Interviews took 15–20 minutes each, were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Example questions derived from quantitative trends in the questionnaire data included: ‘In the survey responses, screen time was something that came up regularly. Some parents were worried their children engaged with technology too much. Others didn’t express this concern. What are your feelings about screen time?’; ‘What has been the influence of the pandemic in your home?’; and ‘As the Covid-19 restrictions are easing, how do you see your child using digital technology into the future?’ The design and timing of the interview allowed parents to reflect on their child’s pre-lockdown digital practices and their own stance on digital technology, how this had evolved during lockdown and their visions moving forward. Qualitative data collection was an iterative process, which continued until data saturation was reached at 20 interviews (Cresswell, 2013). Participants were not asked to talk specifically about practices with specific devices, therefore the qualitative findings reflect their child’s digital practices and experiences more generally.

Ethical considerations

Informed consent was gathered prior to participation in the questionnaire and again for the sub-sample who participated in the interview. The questionnaire was anonymous, however upon completion participants were invited to indicate their consent (and contact details) to be contacted for the next stage of this research – the interview. Only those who indicated consent to be contacted were invited to participate in the interview. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee.

Data analysis

Questionnaire data were analysed in IBM SPSS 26 (IBM Corp, 2019) using descriptive and inferential statistics to identify the quantitative trends as they related to the study aims. Paired samples t-tests were used to examine any changes in screen time between the two time points, and McNemar-Bowker (for categorical data) tests to examine any changes in parent mediation of digital technology. Explorations of data missingness showed about one-third of participants (n = 33, 32.7%) had at least one missing item response. However, the overall level of missing datapoints was less than 10%, and evidence supported that this was missing at random (e.g. due to non-systematically missed items or respondent fatigue). As such, analyses were conducted on all available data.

To elaborate on the main quantitative trends and in order to identify patterns of meaning in participant experiences, qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis (Clarke and Braun, 2015). Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and analysis followed a process of familiarisation by listening to audio recordings, reading and re-reading transcripts, generating initial codes, searching for emerging themes, reviewing, defining and naming themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Various strategies were used to improve the trustworthiness of the data (Elo et al., 2014). Specifically, codes and themes were generated through triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data with collaboration and consensus among the full research team. The semi-structured interviews enabled the capture of rich data, and findings include examples of participant voices to support readers’ understanding. Each stage was carried out in collaboration with the full research team. Data were organised, coded and analysed in NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2020 ).

Findings

Access to digital devices

Children in this sample had access to a variety of digital devices. Importantly, access to digital devices here does not simply represent availability in the home, but rather the child’s access for use. Most commonly, parents reported children could access a television (n = 93, 92.1%), tablet or iPad (n = 59, 58.4%), and smartphone (n = 44, 43.6%). Fewer could access a laptop or desktop computer (n = 23, 22.8%), connected gaming console (n = 15, 14.9%), and portable gaming console (n = 9, 8.9%). Of the six devices, children had access to an average of 2.41 devices (SD = 1.11, range 0–5).

Research question 1: How did children’s digital practices change during Covid-19 lockdown?

Almost two-thirds of parents (n = 64, 63.4%) indicated that their child’s use of digital technologies had changed in response to the lockdown. Parent-reported frequency and duration for use across all screen-based devices trended upwards during lockdown (see Table 2). Paired samples t-test demonstrated that these effects were significant (with moderate to large effect sizes) for the frequency of TV (t(80) = −2.63, p = 0.010, d = −0.29), tablet (t(52) = −4.85, p < 0.001 d = −0.67), and computer (t(18) = −4.31, p < 0.001, d = −0.99), as well as the duration of tablet use (t(47) = −4.13, p < 0.001, d = −0.59), and TV viewing (t(76) = −5.33, p < 0.001, d = −0.61). No other significant changes were found.

Table 2.

Parent-reported access to, frequency (days per week) and duration (minutes per day) of use of digital devices prior to and during Covid-19 lockdown, for young children aged 3–5 years in Australia (N = 101).

	Access		Frequency				Duration
			Pre-Lockdown		Lockdown		Pre-Lockdown		Lockdown
	n	%	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
TV	93	92.1	5.80	1.88	6.20	1.59	70.95	48.39	99.10	64.66
Tablet	59	58.4	3.64	2.53	4.74	2.27	46.87	35.69	71.64	61.14
Smartphone	59	43.6	2.57	2.30	3.26	2.92	23.48	16.23	24.44	14.68
Computer	23	22.8	1.00	1.97	2.14	1.72	11.55	19.70	41.89	51.36
Connected gaming	15	14.9	1.64	2.25	2.92	2.34	42.14	39.78	50.00	35.01
Portable gaming	9	8.9	2.00	2.40	2.77	2.49	14.0	15.17	53.00	41.77

In line with the quantitative findings, all but one (n = 19) of the interviewed parents reported a change in their child’s digital practices during lockdown. Parents described how children’s screen time increased, and these changes were associated with the use of digital technologies as: (i) a mediator of essential interactions and activities; (ii) a substitute for missed opportunities; and (iii) an occupier – ‘freeing-up’ parents to manage competing demands.

A mediator of everyday interactions and activities

Changes in children’s use of digital technologies were frequently spoken about as a ‘necessary’ response to the contextual changes taking place in the child’s life. A prevailing experience reported by parents was the use of digital technologies to mediate ‘essential’ interactions and activities that the child would otherwise be participating in face-to-face, such as social interactions with extended family and friends, and preschool learning. Given the circumstances, these interactions and activities could only take place through digital mediums. Specifically, more than three-quarters of parents (n = 16) commented on increased engagement in online social interactions via Zoom, FaceTime or Kids Messenger, describing these as an essential experience for their child. One parent described her daughter’s interactions with her grandparents: ‘it’s kind of the best we have, you know, it’s a way of her forming a relationship with her family so we need to have that’ (Int01). Like social interactions with extended family and friends, parents also referred to preschool experiences as essential. Almost half (n = 9) of the parents interviewed spoke about their child engaging in online interactive sessions and digitally mediated preschool learning activities offered by preschools. Although these experiences were not mandatory, there was a sense of obligation in parent responses. For example, one mother described how her child’s ‘preschool went online’, explaining that there were two to three sessions a day, 4 days/week. Although she and her child found this a little draining, they participated in these because it was perceived to be important for the child to engage with the new content and ‘to link in with the other kids [who were still attending] at preschool’ (Int21).

A substitute for missed opportunities

In contrast to the above, where parents felt pressure from external circumstances and sources to participate in online learning experiences, some parents (n = 7) spoke about voluntarily initiating additional digital learning experiences for their child. These parents assumed responsibility for ‘filling the gap’ of missed learning opportunities – both formal (preschool) and informal (e.g. participation in library groups, museum visits). In these cases, parents described digital experiences as a ‘substitute’ or replacement activity for other learning opportunities that were previously available. For example, one parent described deliberately sourcing and encouraging her child to watch educational programming:

So I like that, it’s educational, it’s different and I feel like it’s sort of substituting things we may have done though the week that we can’t do at the moment. We would definitely be going out of the house and visiting museums and going to the library. (Int09)

Another parent described how her son’s engagement with apps provided an ‘opportunity for him to explore something he’s interested in that maybe at preschool they might do in a different way – they don’t really use screens, but here, we’re just stuck in the house’ (Int17).

More than two-thirds of parents (n = 16) also reported that there was simply ‘more time to fill’ and digital technology was often used as a substitute for other recreational activities and entertainment. One parent described:

Suddenly there were 14 hours in every day that we had to entertain them because they get up early and so we’re like ‘What are we going to do?’ . . . There’s plenty we can do outdoors but only a certain number of hours that you can be outdoors with kids every day. (Int15)

An occupier – a means to ‘free-up’ parents

Across the sample, there was a sense of challenge associated with juggling caregiving responsibilities with their employment or home duties, as well as parents’ role in supporting older siblings with remote learning. Eighty percent of parents (n = 16) spoke about increased engagement with digital technology as a necessary response to these challenges. For example, one parent who was working from home explained:

I guess over the past few months our attitudes towards it have had to change. We wouldn’t be able to be productive workers without it . . . you know, if we had to do something, if we had to have a meeting, like now, I know that I could give him this for 15 minutes and he won’t come up for air. (Int10)

Similarly, another parent who had an older child engaging in remote schooling (in addition to their preschooler at home) explained, ‘With the younger one, yeah, I mean obviously while I was with the older one, the younger one will take it and play games for example, so yeah, basically for both children, usage definitely increased’ (Int08). In these instances, children’s increased engagement with digital technology served as a means of occupying or creating quiet time – helping parents manage their competing work from home and carer demands.

Research Question 2: How did parents facilitate and govern children’s digital experiences?

Most parents in this sample had established rules about the amount of screen time for their child (n = 71, 85.5%). Additionally, a majority of parents also had rules about where in the home they could use digital devices (n = 73, 86.9%), when they could use them (n = 77, 92.8%), and the digital content they could engage with (n = 78, 95.1%). Parents reported greater flexibility in rules about screen time (χ² = 18.78, p < 0.001) during lockdown, as well as when (χ² = 17.33, p < 0.001) and where they would allow their child to use digital technologies (χ² = 6.67 p = 0.036). Parents’ flexibility in rules about digital content did not change (χ² = 3.00, p = 0.223).

Interviewed parents spoke about how their child’s use of digital technology was governed and facilitated in the home. These conversations evoked discussion of rules, and how for many families these had to evolve in response to the situation. Parents spoke about the process of how these evolved, with two main themes emerging: (i) forced flexibility in rules, and (ii) reflective choices about rules.

Forced flexibility in rules

With many of the family’s essential everyday interactions moving online, along with the managing of their competing demands, parents felt pressure to temporarily forego or be more flexible with their rules and expectations of use (n = 12). Although in the current context digital technology was perceived as a necessity, this ‘forced flexibility’ caused some tension between previously enforced rules or screen time guidelines and conditions imposed by the situation. Some parents reported that managing this tension was confusing and challenging, bringing about angst (n = 7). On the one hand, parents were aware of the screen time guidelines and had in place rules governing the use of digital technology, yet on the other they needed to have their children on screens in order for them to participate in their regular activities, or to manage external pressures (employment, supporting older children in remote learning). To illustrate, one parent explained that it was ‘really hard to draw a line under “they’re not allowed to use technology, it’s a screen-free day” when they actually have to use it a little bit every day’ (Int01). Another parent said, ‘I was thinking to myself, “he’s using a lot of screen time”. Look, it’s hard when you’re working from home as well’ (Int18).

Reflective choices about rules

In contrast, and at times in response to this forced flexibility, some parents described being able to reflect on their stance, expressing elements of choice in how these rules evolved during lockdown. Forty percent of parents (n = 8) described how greater exposure to digital technology during lockdown made them aware of the opportunities for children and linked these to ideas about how they govern their child’s use of digital technology. One parent who introduced the Kids Messenger app to connect with family and friends during lockdown described:

I have relaxed on that over the last three months, realising that, I guess, there seem to be more benefits to it than I initially saw . . . because they have that Kids Messenger, they can chat directly with their relatives; we have grandparents and aunts overseas and so they can message them directly – they don’t have to ask me. (Int02)

The same parent also went on to describe ‘It’s something that I would never, ever have let them do if it hadn’t been for a pandemic’ (Int02). Interestingly, for almost all parents (n = 19), the flexibility in rules appeared context dependent. Parents tended to afford greater flexibility when digital technology was used to support social interaction and when engaged in more interactive content, which were considered essential for children, and lesser flexibility for passive and less interactive experiences such as television viewing.

Discussion

This study originally set out to provide contemporary Australian data detailing young children’s digital experiences in their homes, as part of a larger government-funded project. The unique timing of the study allowed the broadening of scope to explore these within the context of the pandemic. In line with other international reports (e.g. Kharel et al., 2022), this study found that young children’s screen time trended upwards in response to the circumstances brought about by the pandemic. By design, however, this mixed methods study provides an elaborated understanding of these increased digital interactions, and how these were facilitated and governed by their parents. These nuanced findings, situating children’s digital experiences within the context of their family and home, have implications for ongoing discussions about screen time and the potentially changing role of digital technologies in children’s lives. Understanding digital experiences in this way is important (Kumpulainen et al., 2020), particularly given the influence of parents on children’s digital access, as well as the importance of their role in mediating digital experiences to support child development.

In this study, parents described how children’s increased interactions with digital technologies substituted engagement with preschool, other informal learning experiences such as library groups and museum visits, and face-to-face social interactions with family members outside the home. Being unable to participate these usual everyday activities meant that families had to adjust accordingly and, for this sample, digital technologies offered a necessary means for children to continue with, or substitute the interactions, engagements and the learning opportunities (formal and informal) that they and their parents considered to be important. The common perception that digital technologies offer a useful means of occupying children also emerged. This is not a new finding (Marsh et al., 2015), however in this study parents often alluded to this as a way of managing their competing demands, which included working from home and supporting older children in online schooling. These increased demands on parents have also been documented in other international reports (Craig and Churchill, 2021; Hand et al., 2020), and the findings presented here suggest that these challenges filtered down into young children’s digital practices. Although these changes may be circumstantial and a response to the situation, it is also possible they will have continued implications beyond the pandemic context, as workplace practices evolve and teachers explore new ways to engage and connect with students (Zhao and Watterston, 2021).

Like earlier work (Chaudron et al., 2015; Zaman et al., 2016), this study showed that a majority of sampled parents (>85%) had rules that were in response to their child’s use of digital technologies. However, during lockdown parents reported significantly greater flexibility in their rules about the amount of time spent using digital devices, and when and where they could use them. These findings are akin to the experiences of parents of older school-aged children in the context of the pandemic (Pearson and Connections Academy, 2020). Interview elaborations showed that for some parents, this was a forced response to the circumstances brought about by the lockdown and a potential tension that had to be reconciled. Interestingly, however, almost half of the interviewed parents in this study also went on to describe how their choices about their child’s use of digital technology during lockdown were driven by a shift in the way they thought about digital technologies.

For these parents, increased exposure to digital technologies during lockdown facilitated new or different ways of engaging with digital resources that were perceived to support children’s learning and development. For example, the novel experience of being able to ‘link in with the other kids at preschool’ via Zoom was perceived to be valuable and important. Similarly, the deliberate sourcing of new digital content (apps or programming) was perceived to be ‘substituting’ other important learning experiences such as ‘visiting museums and going to the library’. For some, these new uses or exposures brought about greater awareness of the opportunities of digital technologies – prompting greater considerations about the quality of children’s digital experiences (e.g. ‘I think my attitude has changed a bit more to like “what are we doing with it”, rather than “you can just have X amount of time on it” you know’). Given the importance of the home learning environment, particularly in the early years (Toth et al., 2020), increased access to and parents’ knowledge of better quality digital experiences has potential to reconcile some of the tensions that parents experience about digital technologies and children’s development. The influential role of parents’ attitudes and beliefs about digital technologies in determining children’s digital practices is well established in the literature (Lauricella et al., 2015; Vittrup et al., 2016), and in the current study it is these changes in parent perceptions that are likely to have lasting influence over their choices for their children, and the digital opportunities that are available for them to participate in within the context of their home, beyond the pandemic.

For some time, and prior to the pandemic, researchers have called for the need to change the conversation around screen time (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2018). The greater flexibility shown by some parents in this study lends support for an emerging shift from restrictive control of digital access, to a more considered approach, that is guided by more reflective choices about what children are doing digitally, the context in which they are using digital devices, and how these experiences support (or hinder) their child’s development.

Conclusions

Globally, many families were impacted by the pandemic, however the disruption and burden caused varied considerably. The current sample was geographically constrained, with an over-representation of well-educated and high-income families. These factors are known to have influence on the range of digital devices that children have access to, their digital skills and competence, as well as their parents’ attitudes and beliefs about digital technology (Konok et al., 2020; Lauricella et al., 2015). Relatedly, international response to the pandemic varied between countries (Johnston, 2020), and the current findings are thus contextually bound and generalisability beyond this remains an open question. This study also relied on parent report of children’s digital practices, which can be biased (Barr et al., 2020), however the aim of this study was not to quantify screen time. Rather, this study aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of children’s digital practices. In doing so, it highlighted the situated nature of children’s digital experiences, and provided insight into how the circumstances within the social context of the home filter into these. Although further work is required to examine these changing patterns beyond the pandemic context, these findings are nevertheless informative and important.

The pandemic brought about circumstances that required parents to reflect on their stance about digital technologies, and for many parents this resulted in greater willingness for their children to participate in new experiences and explore new digital possibilities. This presents researchers and practitioners with a unique opportunity to respond accordingly, and support parents with further guidance about supporting young children’s safe and effective use of digital technologies. Finally, for many parents, the pandemic brought to the forefront their attention to the learning that occurs in formal (e.g. preschool) and informal learning experiences (e.g. library visits), which inadvertently encouraged them to facilitate and foster quality learning experiences at home. Broadened networks of communication with early education settings, facilitated by digital technology and as necessitated by the pandemic, also present further opportunities for bridging children’s home-school learning and experiences.