Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine first-grade mothers’ literacy levels, their competence in building a reading culture at home, their awareness of children’s visual media use and the relationships between these factors. We used a relational survey design. We conducted the study with 312 first-grade mothers. We used family literacy, competence in building a reading culture and problematic media use scales as data collection tools. Based on the findings, problematic media use shows a significant negative relationship with competence in building a reading culture. Family literacy positively affects the competence in building a reading culture. Mothers with male children have higher scores in problematic use of media technologies than mothers with female children. There is a strong relationship between the duration of media use and problematic media use, but there is a significant positive relationship between family literacy and competence in building a reading culture. While children’s pre-school education increased family literacy scores, we found no significant difference between problematic media use and competence in building a reading culture. Based on the results of the study, it can be said that it is important for families to take a more active role in helping their children acquire reading habits. Since problematic use of media technologies has a negative impact on children’s competence to create a reading culture, guidance and support programmes for parents that include strategies for children to use media technologies in a balanced and controlled way are recommended.

Plain Language Summary

Supporting Children’s Reading Habits in the Digital Age

Today’s children grow up surrounded by both books and screens. To understand how family reading skills and children’s screen time affect each other, we studied 312 mothers of first-grade children. We found that when children spend too much time on screens, it becomes more difficult for mothers to encourage reading at home. However, families that value reading and feel confident about literacy create better reading environments for their children. Key findings include: Boys tend to spend more time on screens than girls. The more screen time children have daily, the more problematic their media use becomes. Families whose children attended preschool had better literacy skills, but this didn’t affect screen time or reading support at home. To help your child love reading, try these strategies: Read together for 15–20 minutes daily; choose books that match your child’s interests; tell stories and play reading games; and create a cozy reading corner. To manage screen time, use parental control apps, establish family screen time rules, and track daily usage. Since boys often have more issues with screen time, parents may need to take different approaches with sons and daughters. Family reading activities had a stronger impact than the negative effects of excessive screen time. However, these findings come from educated mothers with similar backgrounds, so results may differ in other families.

Keywords

reading reading culture parents family literacy problematic media use family proficiency

Introductıon

In digitalised visual media-centred societies, literacy has become a skill that goes beyond its traditional boundaries and diversifies in line with social needs. It is no longer sufficient for individuals to be able to read only printed words. Individuals should also develop the ability to critically interpret and analyse powerful images and messages transmitted through multimedia platforms (Pahl & Rowsell, 2020). While it has long been recognised that traditional print-based approaches are also necessary for developing reading habits, the increasing prevalence of visual media in everyday life has brought opportunities and challenges.

The advent of digital technology has led to a paradigm shift in how children interact with the world. Children now lead a life integrated with technology (Szymkowiak et al., 2021). While screens have become ubiquitous, researchers have associated excessive screen time, especially in early childhood, with problematic media use (Rasmussen et al., 2020). Problematic media use is a growing concern as children are exposed to digital devices from an early age. More than 3 hr of media use per day negatively affects social adjustment (Shou & Nanakida, 2022).

For the purposes of this study, problematic media use was operationally defined using specific behavioural and temporal criteria identified in the literature. Media use is considered problematic under the following conditions: (1) if it exceeds 3 hr per day, since research has shown that media use of more than 3 hr a day negatively impacts social adjustment (Shou & Nanakida, 2022), (2) if it leads to emotional dysregulation and behavioural issues (Li et al., 2022), (3) when it hinders social interactions and results in abnormal peer relationships and decreased prosocial behaviour (Hu et al., 2023), (4) when it causes attention deficit and hyperactivity that impairs daily functionality (Domoff et al., 2019) and (5) when it leads to withdrawal from physical activities and face-to-face social interaction (Rasmussen et al., 2020). These criteria distinguish problematic use from normal, healthy media engagement that serves educational or social purposes within the appropriate time limits.

According to the study by Qi et al. (2023), the average daily screen time for school-aged children between 6 and 14 years old is 2.77 hr, and about half of these children (46.4%) spend more than 2 hr a day in front of a screen. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic increased these rates, and the proportion of children using screens for 2 hr or more daily rose from 41.3% before the pandemic to 59.4% after the pandemic (Qi et al., 2023). Problematic media use creates profound effects, affecting sensory processing, attention spans and overall cognitive development (Li et al., 2022). It also increases the likelihood of students having abnormal peer interaction and prosocial behaviours (Hu et al., 2023).

Problematic media use can lead to a sedentary lifestyle and reduced attention span, which can be detrimental to the reading process. Children who spend too much time in front of screens may have reduced reading comprehension skills and interest in reading activities. Sensory overload and instant gratification from screens may impair children’s ability to focus on the linear and narrative structure of texts and negatively affect the effort required for reading (Li et al., 2022). At this point, the support of families for their children is important.

To fully participate in this media age, families need to have broader literacy skills that enable them not only to understand the messages they receive, but also to use these tools effectively to design and communicate their own messages (UNESCO, 2024). These requirements have increased the importance of family literacy skills that are effective in building a reading culture at home.

Within the scope of this study, we define family literacy as the reading and writing activities that parents carry out with their children, their skills in supporting their children’s reading development, and their early literacy behaviours (Dahl-Leonard et al. 2025). We consider competency to building a reading culture as a family’s capacity to instill the value of reading, develop beliefs about reading, serve as role models and participate in reading activities (Çiğdemir & Akyol, 2020). Excessive consumption characterises problematic media use as a form of digital media usage, which negatively affects children’s behavioural and psychological health (Yu-Ting et al., 2025). Although these three concepts are interrelated, they represent different dimensions.

Family literacy refers mainly to the skill level of parents, whereas fostering a reading culture refers to the implementation of these skills at home. The building a reading culture means that everyone, from parents to children, reads a variety of texts, actively participates in discussion and creates an environment where reading is valued (Morrow, 2020). Promoting a reading culture in families is very important to support literacy skills, academic success and lifelong learning.

The family unit, which is the primary area of socialisation, plays a very important role in instilling reading habits and facilitating literacy development (Lynch & Prins, 2023). In order to eliminate the effects of problematic media use, families should be able to determine various strategies to improve reading skills. In particular, the conversations and interactions encouraged by shared reading enable children to develop certain skills and attitudes such as increasing vocabulary, understanding the text, or enjoying reading (Guzmán-Simón et al., 2020).

The entire education process is important in the development of reading skills, but researchers consider first grade, which is the first step of starting primary school, critically important for reading skills. As one of the basic elements of the primary school programme, schools should provide students with sufficient time for reading in the first grade because this period is the basis for the progression of fluent and meaningful reading (Rasinski et al., 2020). Teachers develop this critical period for reading skills at school while families support it at home.

Parental roles and contributions at home may vary in terms of the development of reading skills. At home, mothers contribute more than fathers to the reading activities of first-grade children (Skwarchuk et al., 2022). At this point, the adequacy of mothers’ literacy skills also comes to the fore. Mothers’ interactions with books contribute to children’s literacy skills (Jacob et al., 2024). However, there is no study on mothers’ awareness of visual media technology, which is a very important element in children’s daily lives.

Mothers’ awareness of these technologies can determine how effective they are in regulating and controlling children’s media use. The conscious management of children’s visual media usage habits by mothers is an issue that should be associated with children’s reading habits in a balanced way. When mothers are conscious and competent in both building a reading culture and regulating visual media use, they can support their children’s academic and general development in a more balanced way.

From this perspective, this study aimed to examine the literacy levels of first-grade mothers, their competence in creating a reading culture at home, and their awareness of their children’s problematic media use. The study also investigated the relationships among these variables and the predictive effects of family literacy and problematic media use on competence to establish a reading culture. Given the growing concerns about the potential impacts of children’s media usage habits on reading development and the critical role of families in this process, understanding the relationships among these variables is vital for developing effective intervention strategies. Determining the levels of family literacy, reading culture competence and awareness of problematic media use among first-grade mothers provides a foundation for evidence-based practice. Furthermore, examining the predictive effects of family literacy and problematic media use on reading cultural competence will guide the design of parent education programmes, while investigating the effects of demographic factors will contribute to the development of differentiated approaches. In line with this study’s aim, the following research questions were addressed:

(1) What are the levels of participants’ family literacy, competence in creating a reading culture and awareness of their children’s problematic media use?

(2) Is there a significant relationship between participants’ family literacy, children’s problematic media use and parent’s competence in creating a reading culture?

(3) Do children’s problematic media use and their families’ literacy and competence in creating a reading culture significantly predict these outcomes?

(4) Do the participants’ family literacy, competence in creating a reading culture, and awareness of their children’s problematic media use show significant differences according to various variables (gender, employment status, child’s average daily TV/computer and phone use time and child’s pre-school education status)?

Method

Research Design

We designed the study as a relational survey. Relational survey model is an approach that aims to analyse the direction and degree of relationships between at least two variables (Johnson & Christensen, 2019; Lodico & Voegtle, 2010). Thanks to the correlational survey model, it is aimed that the findings obtained by objectively examining the effects of media use and family literacy on children’s reading culture will provide important findings in both theoretical and practical terms.

Participants

In this study, 312 mothers whose children were in the first grade of primary school in the 2023 to 2024 academic year participated (n = 312). We selected participants using convenience sampling technique (Büyüköztürk et al., 2010). When determining the sample size, we paid attention to the minimum five times the number of items (Bryman & Cramer, 2001). Accordingly, the minimum sample size should be 160. We reached more than this number of mothers with first grade children (n = 312). Table 1 presents demographic information of the participants.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics and Media Usage Patterns of Participant (N = 293).

Variables	Group	Frequency	Percentage
Gender of the child	Boy	152	51.9
Gender of the child	Girl	141	48.1
Child’s pre-school education status	No	16	5.5
Child’s pre-school education status	Yes	277	94.5
Education status	Primary school	24	8.2
	Secondary school	21	7.2
	High school	74	25.3
	Undergraduate	149	50.9
	Postgraduate	25	8.5
Marital status	Married	280	95.6
Marital status	Divorced	13	4.4
Employment status	No	135	46.1
Employment status	Yes	158	53.9
Average time the child spends on TV/computer, mobile phone in a day	0–30 min	29	9.9
	30–60 min	60	20.5
	1 hr	83	28.3
	2 hr	88	30
	3 hr and above	33	11.3
Worrying about the child’s use of TV/computer and telephone	Never	19	6.5
	Rarely	42	14.3
	Sometimes	70	23.9
	Frequently	85	29
	Always	77	26.3

After we deleted extreme values, Table 1 shows the distribution of data obtained from 293 participants. 51.9% of the participants stated that their child was a boy and 48.1% stated that their child was a girl. 94.5% of the participants stated that their children received pre-school education and 5.5% stated that they did not.

The distribution of the participants according to education level was determined as primary school (8.2%), secondary school (7.2%), high school (25.3%), undergraduate (50.9%) and postgraduate (8.5%). 95.6% of the participants were married and 4.4% were divorced. 53.9% of the participants stated that they were working and 46.1% stated that they were not working. The distribution of the participants according to the average time spent by their children on TV/computer and telephone in a day was 0 to 30 min (9.9%), 30 to 60 min (20.5%), 1 hr (28.3%), 2 hr (30%) and 3 hr or more (11.3%).

The distribution according to the frequency of the child’s use of TV/computer and telephone by the participants was never (6.5%), rarely (14.3%), sometimes (23.9%), frequently (29%) and always (26.3%).

Instruments

Within the scope of the research, we gave ‘Personal Information Form’ to all participants in order to determine the demographic characteristics of the participants. In addition, we used measurement tools with validity and reliability to determine the literacy level of the participants’ mothers, their competence in building a reading culture, and the level of problematic media use in children.

Personal information form: It consists of 10 questions to determine the socio-demographic characteristics of the mothers participating in the study. We prepared this form to collect information about the participants’ age, employment status, marital status, educational status, number of children, pre-school education status of their children, gender of their children, age of their children, screen time of their children and concerns about screen time of their children. In this context, the participants’ gender (female or male), age (between 25 and 60), age of the child (5.5, 6, 7, 8), gender of the child (girl or boy), educational status (illiterate, primary school, secondary school, high school, university, master’s degree, doctorate), marital status (married or divorced), employment status (yes or no) and pre-school education status of the child (yes or no) were questioned.

The time spent by the child in front of the screen (never, half an hour, half an hour to 1 hr, 1, 2, 3 and 4 hr or more) and the concern about the time spent by the child in front of the screen (never, rarely, sometimes, frequently, always) are evaluated.

Family Literacy Scale: Kılıç et al. (2017) developed it. Researchers developed the scale to measure literacy behaviours of first-grade mothers. The scale has a 5-point Likert-type structure and consists of 32 items. It consists of three dimensions: “parental literacy, child literacy and early literacy.” The first factor (a = .92), the second factor (a = .86) and the third factor (a = 0.79) have reliability coefficients. The reliability coefficient of the whole scale is α = .90. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated to be .96 for this scale.

Family Competence Scale in the formation of reading culture: It was developed by Çiğdemir and Akyol (2020) to determine competence in building a reading culture of family. It is a measurement tool consisting of four dimensions and 19 items. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 19 and the highest score is 95.

As a result of the reliability analyses, it was determined that the reliability level of the whole scale and its sub-dimensions was quite sufficient (reading belief = .67, modelling = .78; participation in reading = .67; attitude = .70; total = .86). As a result of CFA, the validity of the scale was confirmed (p = .000, df = 145, 296.304, 2.043; RMSEA = .089; GFI = .808; AGFI = .749; CFI = .716). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated to be .873 for this scale.

Problematic Media Use Scale: Developed in 2017 by Domoff et al. (2019) to detect problematic media use in children aged 4 to 12 years, it was adapted into Turkish by Furuncu and Öztürk (2020). The scale consists of 27 items with a 5-point Likert-type structure and 5 sub-dimensions. These sub-dimensions are emotional problems, behavioural problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity, peer problems and social behaviours.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the whole scale is .82, and the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of the sub-dimensions are .72, .42, .72, .46 and .62, respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated to be .957 for this scale. Because the behavioural problems (α = .42) and peer problems (α = .46) sub-dimensions have reliability coefficients below the acceptable threshold (α < .70), the total scale scores (α = .957) were used in this study instead of sub-dimensions analyses. This approach was adopted to prevent potential validity issues arising from the unreliable sub-dimensions.

Procedure

We collected research data online. Participants filled informed consent forms during the data collection phase. We took participants’ voluntariness as a basis. We informed participants about the study’s purpose and stated that they could leave the study. We informed them that we would treat their data with full confidentiality. Research and Publication Ethics Committee unanimously decided that our research follows scientific research and publication ethics.

Data Analyses

We used statistical data analysis software in data analysis. Firstly, extreme value control was performed for the scale scores. For outliers, z standard value transformations of the scale scores were obtained and if these values were outside the range of ±3.30, they were considered outliers and excluded from the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). For the general scores of competence in building a reading culture, we determined 19 participants as outliers and did not include them in the analysis.

We calculated descriptive statistics for the scale scores according to demographic variables. For normality, skewness and kurtosis values were examined and if these values were between ±2, the distribution was considered normal (George & Mallery, 2010). We used Pearson correlation method to examine the relationship between the general scores of problematic media use, family literacy and competence in building a reading culture. Baykul (2010) stated that when the correlation coefficient is less than .40, it shows a low level of relationship.

We used multiple linear regression method to examine the effect of problematic media use and family literacy on the general levels of competence in building a reading culture. We state the assumptions for this method in the related section. Finally, We used parametric comparison methods to examine the difference between the problematic media use, family literacy and competence in building a reading culture scores according to the participants’ gender, employment status and the average duration of their child’s TV, computer and telephone use per day.

We compared scale scores according to demographic variables with two categories and sufficient data (N > 25) using independent groups t-test method. We used one-way variance analysis (ANOVA) method for independent variables with more than two categories and sufficient number of data (N > 25). We compared significant differences for ANOVA using Tukey multiple comparison method.

We used the Mann–Whitney U analysis method, which is a non-parametric comparison method, to compare the scale scores according to the pre-school education status of the child. The number of participants whose children did not receive pre-school education could not meet the condition of having sufficient sample size (N > 25) in the groups required for comparison analysis by groups. In addition, this method compares rank differences by ranking continuous measurements according to groups, but mean and standard deviation values are given for easier interpretation. For statistical analyses, p < .05 significance level was examined.

Result

In this section, we present the findings by considering the research questions.

Descriptive Statistics for Problematic Media Use, Family Literacy, and Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

First, as part of the analysis, the participants’ family literacy, competence in creating a reading culture, and awareness of their children’s problematic media use were examined. Accordingly, in Table 2 presents the participants’ general levels of problematic media use, family literacy and competence in creating a reading culture.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Regarding Problematic Media Use, Family Literacy and Competence in Building a Reading Culture (N = 293).

Scale scores	Min	Max	$\bar{x}$	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
PMU total	1	3.59	1.64	.58	1.111	.761
Family literacy	1.06	5	3.52	.75	−.799	.317
Competence in building a reading culture	2.53	5	3.79	.39	.202	1.101

Note. PMU = problematic media use.

As seen in Table 2, we obtained all scale scores by averaging the items and vary between 1 and 5. The mean scores of problematic media use were 1.64, family literacy was 3.52 and reading culture was 3.79. Since the skewness and kurtosis values for all three scales are between ±2, they are normally distributed.

Relationships Between Participants’ Family Literacy, Children’s Problematic Media Use and Parents’ Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

The relationship between participants’ family literacy, children’s problematic media use, and parents’ competence in creating a reading culture was also investigated. We used Pearson correlation method, which is a parametric method for the relationship between the participants’ problematic media use, family literacy and competence in creating a reading culture general scores. As Table 3 shows, the data number is both sufficient (N > 50) and the scores are normally distributed.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Among Study Variables (N = 293).

Variables	1	2	3
1. PMU	1
2. Family literacy	−.04	1
3. Competence in building a reading culture	−.15*	.20**	1

p < .01. *p < .05.

As seen in Table 3, there is a low level, positive and significant relationship between the participants’ competence in creating a reading culture and family literacy scores (r = .20, p < .01). As the participants’ competence in creating a reading culture general scores increase, their family literacy scores increase or vice versa. The participants show a low level, negative and significant relationship between the participants’ competence in creating a reading culture and their problematic media use scores (r = −.15, p < .01). As the participants’ competence in creating a reading culture general scores increase, their problematic media use scores decrease or vice versa. However, the participants show no significant relationship between the participants’ competence in creating a reading culture and problematic media use scores (p > .05).

Regression Analysis on Whether Participants’ Problematic Media Use and Family Literacy Affected Their Overall Level of Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

The study also examines whether participants’ problematic media use and family literacy affect their overall level of competence in creating a reading culture. We used multiple linear regression method the effect of participants’ problematic media use and family literacy on the general levels of competence in creating a reading culture. This method requires that scores show normal distribution, be continuous, the number of data should be large enough (N > 50) and there should be no multicollinearity problem between independent variables.

While this problem indicates a high level (r > .90) relationship between independent variables, if the tolerance value is greater than .10 and the VIF value is less than 10, there is no multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Problematic media use and family literacy showed a tolerance value of .10 and the VIF value was 1.00 and there was no multicollinearity. Table 4 presents the data.

Table 4.

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Reading Culture Competence from Media Usage and Family Literacy (N = 293).

Independent variables	B	SH	β	t	p
Constant	3.59	.13		28.15	.00
PMU	−.10	.04	−.14	−2.44	.02
Family literacy	.10	.03	.19	3.32	.001
Model statistics	f _(2.29) = 8.84; p < .001
Model statistics	R = .24; R² = .06

According to Table 4, the multiple linear regression model analysed according to the effect of participants’ problematic media use and family literacy on the general levels of competence in creating a reading culture is significant (f[2.29] = 8.84, p < .001). Problematic media use and family literacy scores explain 5.7% of the variability in competence in creating a reading culture scores. Problematic media use is a negative and significant predictor for participants’ competence in creating a reading culture (B = −.10, t = −2.44, p < .05).

However, we found family literacy to be a positive and significant predictor for participants’ competence in creating a reading culture (B = .10, t = 3.32, p < .05). When the participants’ scores of problematic media use increased by 1 unit, their scores of competence in creating a reading culture decreased by .10 unit, while when their family literacy scores increased by 1 unit, their scores of competence in creating a reading culture increased by .10 unit. The β-value, which is the standardised regression coefficient, shows the level of importance of the predictor variables. Accordingly, family literacy has a greater effect on competence in creating a reading culture than problematic media use.

Group Differences in Family Literacy, Competence in Creating a Reading Culture and Awareness of Children’s Problematic Media Use

The study examined whether participants’ family literacy, competence in creating a reading culture, and awareness of their children’s problematic media use showed significant differences according to variables such as gender, employment status, average duration of TV/computer and telephone use of the child in a day, and the child’s pre-school education status. Table 5 presents data according to these variables.

Table 5.

Group Comparisons of Study Variables According to Demographic Characteristics.

Group	N	PMU	Family literacy	Reading culture
Group	N	$\bar{x}$ ± SD	$\bar{x}$ ± SD	$\bar{x}$ ± SD
Gender
Boy	152	1.74 ± .62	3.57 ± .73	3.8 ± .4
Girl	141	1.53 ± .5	3.47 ± .76	3.77 ± .39
t₍₂₉₁₎		3.11	1.19	.73
p		.002*	.24	.47
Employment status
No	135	1.63 ± .58	3.49 ± .73	3.82 ± .41
Yes	158	1.64 ± .57	3.55 ± .76	3.76 ± .37
t₍₂₉₁₎		−.14	−.73	1.4
p		.89	.47	.16
Average duration of TV/computer and telephone use of the child in a day
0–30 min^a	29	1.25 ± .29	3.38 ± .88	3.85 ± .46
30–60 min^b	60	1.39 ± .41	3.64 ± .84	3.85 ± .37
1 hr^c	83	1.6 ± .5	3.5 ± .72	3.75 ± .41
2 hr^d	88	1.81 ± .63	3.55 ± .67	3.76 ± .36
3 hr and above^e	33	2.11 ± .58	3.39 ± .73	3.78 ± .39
F_{(4, 288)}		16.68	.97	.86
p		.00*	.42	.49
Difference		5 > 3.4 > 2.1
Child’s pre-school education status
No	16	1.6 ± .62	3.03 ± .77	3.69 ± .65
Yes	277	1.64 ± .57	3.55 ± .74	3.79 ± .37
Z		−.5	−2.52	−.48
p		.62	.012*	.63

Note. t = independent groups t-test statistics; F = ANOVA statistics; Z = Mann–Whitney U statistics; Difference = Tukey multiple comparison result.

p < .05.

Superscript letters (a, b, c, d, e) indicate significant differences between groups according to Tukey’s post-hoc test.

As seen in Table 5, participants show significant differences in problematic media use scores according to their children’s gender (t[291] = 3.11, p < .05). The mean score of problematic media use of participants with male children is higher than the mean score of participants with female children. However, there is no significant difference between the scores of family literacy (t[291] = 1.19, p > .05) and competence in building a reading culture (t[291] = .73, p > .05) according to the gender of the child.

The scores show no significant difference between the participants’ problematic media use (t[291] = −.14, p > .05), family literacy (t[291] = −.73, p > .05) and competence in building a reading culture (t[291] = 1.4, p > .05) scores according to employment status. The difference between the problematic media use scores according to the average duration of TV, computer and telephone use of the child per day is significant (f[4.29] = 16.68, p < .05). We compared the time periods between which we found differences using Tukey, one of the multiple comparison methods. We indicated the significant time groups in the difference row.

According to this, there is a difference between the problematic media use scores of the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and telephone usage time is 3 hr or more and the participants who stated that it is 2 hr or less (p < .05). The mean problematic media use score of the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and telephone usage time was 3 hr or more was higher than the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and telephone usage time was 2 hr or less. In addition, there is a difference between the problematic media use scores of the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and phone usage time is 1 to 2 hr and the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and phone usage time is less than 1 hr (p < .05).

The mean problematic media use score of the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and phone usage time was 1 to 2 hr was higher than the participants who stated that their child’s average daily TV, computer and phone usage time was less than 1 hr. Finally, family literacy scores show no significant difference (f[4.29] = .97, p > .05) and the competence in building a reading culture (f[4.29] = .86, p > .05) according to the average daily TV, computer and telephone usage time of the child. Children’s pre-school education status creates significant differences in participants’ family literacy scores (Z = −2.52, p < .05).

The mean family literacy score of the participants who stated that their child received preschool education was higher than the participants who stated that their child did not receive preschool education. However, problematic media use scores show no significant difference (Z = −.5, p > .05) and the competence in building a reading culture (t[291] = −.48, p > .05) according to the child’s preschool education status.

Discussion

This study provides important findings on mothers’ awareness of first-grade children’s visual media usage habits, their competence in building a reading culture and their literacy skills. In a study on first-grade students, Sucena et al. (2023) found a significant and positive relationship between mother’s education and children’s phonological working memory, vocabulary knowledge and reading skills. There are many studies in the literature on the positive contribution of mothers’ educational status or activities carried out with mothers at home to children’s reading skills (Abuya et al., 2018; Baker, 2014; Curenton & Justice, 2008; Peixoto et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2024). Although these studies are related to the purpose of our study, there are no studies that directly address mothers’ reading culture formation competencies, literacy skills and children’s problematic media use habits in a related way.

Mothers’ awareness of children’s problematic media use is one of the important variables in terms of reading process. Madigan et al. (2019) stated in their study on 3,388 mothers and their children that problematic media use negatively affects academic achievement and that researchers should carry out studies for families in this regard. In this respect, this study is also important in terms of evaluating the effects of mothers’ literacy levels, their ability to create a reading culture, and their awareness of problematic media use on children’s education and development processes.

Descriptive Statistics for Problematic Media Use, Family Literacy and Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Our findings regarding participants’ general levels of problematic media use, family literacy and competence in building a reading culture show that mothers have various levels of knowledge and skills. Mothers’ attitudes and behaviours towards technology, level of knowledge and control skills can significantly affect how their children use digital media; positive attitudes and supportive environments ensure the development of healthy and reliable habits about technology (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Strasburger et al., 2010). According to Nergis (2008), there is a positive relationship between mothers’ interest in the media and their children’s literacy skills.

Our findings show that the children of the participants generally do not use media technologies in a problematic way and have a low risk level in this regard. According to the mean score of family literacy, we determined that participants had a moderate level of competence in family literacy practices. This moderate score reveals that mothers’ knowledge and skills on literacy need to be further developed, but they are generally aware of this issue.

The mean score of the participants’ competence in building a reading culture is at a high level. This high average shows that the participants play an active role in helping their children acquire reading habits and provide a positive environment for reading. Supporting this finding, Nergis (2008) found that mothers spending their free time with literacy activities had a positive effect on children’s preliteracy behaviours. Sénéchal and LeFevre (2014) stated that family literacy activities are effective in developing children’s reading skills. According to them, these activities include mothers supporting their children with activities such as reading, storytelling and writing. According to Incognito and Pinto (2023), parents’ level of education significantly affects children’s early literacy skills, and home-based literacy activities play a decisive role especially in the development of textual skills. These studies support our study’s findings.

Relationships Between Participants’ Family Literacy, Children’s Problematic Media Use, and Parents’ Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Our findings regarding the effects of the participants’ children’s problematic media use and family literacy on reading culture formation competence show that problematic media use has a significant negative effect on competence in building a reading culture. In contrast to this finding, Turco et al. (2023) pointed out that there is no relationship between mobile screen media and language and literacy development. However, our study reveals that the problematic use of media technologies by the participants’ children negatively affects their competence in building a reading culture. Anderson and Pempek (2005) drew attention to this issue and pointed out that since excessive media use may cause social and academic development problems in children, mothers should be aware of this issue and control their children’s media use.

In our study, we determined that family literacy has a positive and significant effect on the competence in building a reading culture. The efforts of families to provide their children with reading habits also help children to adopt the competence in building a reading culture. Clark and Rumbold (2006) support this finding by stating that competence in building a reading culture increases children’s language skills and general academic achievement.

Regression Analysis on Whether Participants’ Problematic Media Use and Family Literacy Affected Their Overall Level of Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Standardised regression coefficient values show that the effect of family literacy competence in building a reading culture is stronger compared to problematic media use. This finding shows that family literacy is a more effective factor in developing children’s competence in building a reading culture. Supporting this finding, Riser et al. (2020) found that children’s reading skills are better in families where activities such as reading books and playing games are done frequently at home. In addition, in their study, they revealed that especially reading books together is an important predictor of later reading skills.

While these findings emphasise the importance of family literacy, the low explanatory power of our multiple regression model (R² = .06) requires critical evaluation. Problematic media use and family literacy can explain only 5.7% of the variance in competencies related to developing a reading culture. This indicates that other important variables affecting the development of a reading culture are not included in our model. Factors such as parental education level, socioeconomic status, physical condition of the home environment, and family dynamics likely play a stronger role in this process. This limitation highlights the need to develop more comprehensive models in future research.

Group Differences in Family Literacy, Competence in Creating a Reading Culture and Awareness of Children’s Problematic Media Use

The differences between problematic media use, family literacy and the competence in building a reading culture in terms of the gender of their children revealed that there was a significant difference between the problematic media use scores according to the gender of the child. The mean problematic media use scores of the participants with male children were significantly higher than those of the participants with female children. This finding indicates that boys are more likely to use media technologies problematically than girls. Dore et al. (2020) investigated the relationship between children’s media use and various developmental outcomes in their study and stated that boys tend to use media more for entertainment purposes, which can sometimes lead to problematic use. Nergis (2008) also found that gender affects students’ pre-literacy behaviours; girls’ literacy skills are higher than boys’.

No significant relationship was found between employment status and problematic media use, family literacy and the competence in building a reading culture. Based on this finding, it can be said that the effect of employment status is limited. Similar to this finding, Nergis (2008) found that mothers’ employment status positively affected children’s literacy behaviours. On the other hand, there are studies in the literature that the socioeconomic level of mothers has an effect on children’s reading skills (Corso et al., 2016; Freitas et al., 2019; Sucena et al., 2023). In the literature, there are also studies showing that especially non-working mothers have higher digital parenting than fathers and use digital media more efficiently with their children (Anderson, 2016; Kennedy, 2011). These studies do not fully overlap with the findings of our study.

A significant difference was found between the problematic media use scores according to the child’s daily media use time, but differences were found between the time spent in front of the screen. A strong relationship was found between the duration of media use and problematic media use. Ponti (2023) also supports this finding by stating that long-term media use can increase problematic behaviours.

These negative effects of media also affect reading skills (Aksaçlıoğlu & Yılmaz, 2007; Kalkan, 2008). According to Liu and Wu (2024), parents’ monitoring and guiding their children’s internet use prevents children from being negatively affected by technology. On the other hand, based on the findings of our study, no significant difference was found between the daily media usage time of the child and the scores of family literacy and reading culture formation competence. These findings show that the effect of the duration of the child’s media use on family literacy and competence in building a reading culture is not significant.

There is a significant difference between the pre-school education status of the child and family literacy scores. In this respect, our research shows that preschool education has a positive effect on family literacy. Esaspehlivan (2006) emphasised the importance of preschool education and determined that the school and educational readiness levels of children who received preschool education were higher than those of children who did not receive preschool education. Zvoch et al. (2008) found that the literacy skills of children who attended full-day kindergarten improved more than those who attended half-day kindergarten. Heath et al. (2014) also stated in their study that family factors such as parents’ phonological awareness and perceived self-efficacy, when combined with preschool education, will positively affect children’s early literacy skills.

There is no significant difference between the child’s preschool education status and problematic media use scores. In this respect, whether the child receives preschool education or not does not affect the level of problematic media use. Similarly, there is no significant difference between the child’s preschool education and mothers’ competence in building a reading culture. In contrast to this finding, Sevinç and Kuvvet (2007) found that families with children who received preschool education were able to do more activities.

Limitations

The limitations of this study may impact the general validity of its findings. Given that the majority of participants originated from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, it may be inferred that the findings are only applicable to families within this demographic. This homogeneity may have limited the variations that could be obtained from families with low literacy levels and groups with different cultural attitudes towards media use.

The fact that 50.9% of the participants held a bachelor’s degree may explain why the average family literacy score was relatively high. Similarly, the low scores for problematic media use may have been influenced by the socioeconomic characteristics of the sample. Convenience sampling also poses a risk of systematic bias and may limit the generalisability of our findings to the entire population.

Furthermore, the data collection method, which relies on self-report by the participants, may not yield an objective reflection due to the social desirability effect. Mothers may have overstated their competence in fostering a reading culture or understating their children’s problematic media use to present themselves in a positive light. This situation may have limited the objectivity of the data obtained.

The inability to interpret the relationships between problematic media use and literacy and reading culture-building competence as cause and effect indicates a need for further investigation. Furthermore, the study’s geographical focus has constrained the potential for generalising its findings across diverse cultural contexts.

Our study was conducted primarily with urban, educated mothers in Tukey. Due to the cultural context of our study, our findings may be significantly limited in their applicability to other cultural settings where family structures, reading traditions, and media attitudes differ considerably. Consequently, it is recommended that future studies should include participants from a more diverse range of cultural backgrounds. In this study, effect sizes were not reported in the group comparisons. This may limit the assessment of the practical significance of the findings in addition to their statistical significance.

Recommendation

From a methodological perspective, future research should use stratified sampling methods. Studies involving mothers from different socioeconomic statuses, educational levels, and cultural backgrounds will increase the generalisability of the findings. Such diversity will contribute to the development of more effective strategies by educational policymakers across a broader spectrum.

In terms of data collection, future studies should use more objective assessment methods, such as observational data or teacher reports, in addition to self-report measures. This multi-source approach can increase the reliability of findings by reducing the effect of social desirability bias. In terms of determining causal relationships, the relational survey model in this study revealed correlations between variables. However, causal links could not be established.

Future research should examine whether family literacy directly affects competence in creating a reading culture. The role of confounding variables such as parental education level could also be investigated in this relationship. A longitudinal research design can be used for this purpose. The impact of family literacy intervention programmes can be tested using experimental and quasi-experimental designs. These studies will help clarify the causal pathways. Therefore, more effective intervention strategies should be developed.

Based on the findings of the study, it is important for families to assume more effective roles in helping their children acquire reading habits. In this respect, organising trainings for families to gain skills on reading habits and child development can strengthen their competence in building a reading culture.

In practical terms, family literacy programmes for parents may include concrete activities such as 15 to 20 min daily shared reading sessions, guidance on selecting books that match the child’s interests, storytelling and role-playing activities and creating a reading corner at home. For school administrations, family literacy workshops, book-lending systems and the preparation of materials to support home-reading activities can be implemented. Policymakers can initiate national family literacy campaigns, offer free-parent education programmes in libraries, and ensure the integration of media literacy curricula into elementary school programmes.

Since problematic use of media technologies has a negative impact on children’s competence in building a reading culture, guidance and support programmes for parents that include strategies for children to use media technologies in a balanced and controlled manner are recommended. To control media usage, parents can be provided with digital parenting applications, family media agreement templates and daily screen-time tracking charts. Considering that boys use media technologies more problematically, gender-specific approaches should be adopted in reading and literacy processes.

While preschool education positively affects family literacy, it does not create a significant difference in media use. Therefore, extending and improving the quality of preschool education programmes can improve the literacy skills of families. In terms of gender differences, the fact that boys exhibit more problematic media use highlights the need for more in-depth research on this subject. Future studies could examine the underlying reasons for this difference in detail using qualitative research methods.

Education policymakers should design differentiated media literacy programmes for both boys and girls. School administrators and teachers can develop classroom technology integration strategies by considering gender-based differences in media-usage patterns. Meanwhile, in parent education programmes, parents can be made aware of and educated about their different approaches to their sons’ and daughters’ media use. In future research, calculating effect sizes (such as Cohen’s d and eta-squared) in group comparisons may contribute to evaluating the practical significance of the findings.

Conclusion

This study examines the effects of mothers’ media usage habits, reading culture building abilities and literacy skills on children’s education, and development processes. The results show that mothers have different levels of knowledge and skills in media use, family literacy and competence in building a reading culture. Mothers’ competence in building a reading culture are quite high, but their children’s problematic use of media technologies negatively affects these skills.

A significant negative relationship was found between problematic media use and competence in building a reading culture. Family literacy, on the other hand, positively affects competence in building a reading culture. Families’ efforts to help their children acquire reading habits help children develop a reading culture, and this effect is stronger than problematic media use.

The problematic media use scores of mothers with male children are higher than those of mothers with female children. There is a strong relationship between the duration of media use and problematic media use, but the duration of media use does not have a significant effect on family literacy and competence in building a reading culture. There is a significant difference on family literacy scores whether the child has pre-school education or not, but there is no significant difference between problematic media use and mothers’ competence in building a reading culture.

However, these findings should be interpreted in the context of the characteristics of our sample. The fact that most participants were educated mothers from similar socioeconomic backgrounds limits the generalisability of our results to more diverse populations. The patterns observed in this study may differ significantly among families with varying educational levels, socioeconomic statuses and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further studies with more heterogeneous samples, including mothers with low literacy levels and families from different socioeconomic contexts, to determine the broader applicability of these findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251383082 – Supplemental material for Examination of First Grade Mothers’ Literacy Levels, Competence in Building a Reading Culture and Awareness of Their Children’s Media Use

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251383082 for Examination of First Grade Mothers’ Literacy Levels, Competence in Building a Reading Culture and Awareness of Their Children’s Media Use by Mazhar Bal, İlke Altuntaş Gürsoy and Emre Öztürk in SAGE Open

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Mazhar Bal

İlke Altuntaş Gürsoy

Emre Öztürk

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards as approved by the Akdeniz University Social Sciences and Humanities Research and Publication Ethics Committee. The research was unanimously determined to comply with the ethical guidelines for scientific research and publication, with the approval granted under Meeting Decision Number 09/234/2024.

Author Contributions

All authors involved in the drafting/revision of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abuya

B. A.

Mumah

Austrian

Mutisya

Kabiru

(2018). Mothers’ education and girls’ Achievement in Kibera: The link with self-efficacy. SAGE Open, 8(1), Article 215824401876560. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018765608

Aksaçlıoğlu

A. G.

Yılmaz

(2007). Öğrencilerin televizyon izlemeleri ve bilgisayar kullanmalarının okuma alışkanlıklarıüzerine etkisi. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 21(1), 3–28.

Anderson

D. R.

Pempek

T. A.

(2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506

Anderson

(2016). Parents, teens and digital monitoring. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/

Baker

C. E.

(2014). Mexican mothers’ English proficiency and children’s school readiness: Mediation through home literacy involvement. Early Education and Development, 25(3), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.807721

Baykul

(2010). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

KılıçÇakmak

Akgün

Ö. E.

Karadeniz

Ş.

Demirel

. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Yayınları.

Bryman

Cramer

(2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.

Clark

Rumbold

(2006). Reading for pleasure: A research overview. National Literacy Trust.

10.

Corso

H. V.

Cromley

J. G.

Sperb

Salles

J. F.

(2016). Modeling the relationship among reading comprehension, intelligence, socioeconomic status, and neuropsychological functions: The mediating role of executive functions. Psychology & Neuroscience, 9(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000036

11.

Curenton

S. M.

Justice

L. M.

(2008). Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of mothers’ education and beliefs about shared-reading interactions. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280801963939

12.

Çiğdemir

Akyol

(2020). Okuma kültürü oluşturmada aile yeterliliği ölçeği geliştirme ve uygulama çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 1874–1912.

13.

Dahl-Leonard

Hall

Cho

Capin

Roberts

G. J.

Kehoe

K. F.

Haring

Peacott

Demchak

(2025). Examining the effects of family-ımplemented literacy ınterventions for school-aged children: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09985-3

14.

Domoff

S. E.

Harrison

Gearhardt

A. N.

Gentile

D. A.

Lumeng

J. C.

Miller

A. L.

(2019). Development and validation of the problematic media use measure: A parent report measure of screen media “addiction” in children. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000163

15.

Dore

R. A.

Logan

Lin

T. J.

Purtell

K. M.

Justice

L. M.

(2020). Associations between children’s media use and language and literacy skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1734. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01734

16.

Esaspehlivan

(2006). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumuna gitmiş ve gitmemiş 78 ve 68 aylık çocukların okula hazır bulunuşluklarının karşılaştırılması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Marmara Universitesi.

17.

Freitas

Ribeiro

Andrade

Oliveira

Mota

Guaresi

(2019). Influência da inteligência e dos aspectos socioeconômicos sobre o desempenho da leitura e da escrita. Revista Neuropsicologia Latinoamericana, 11(2), 1–12.

18.

Furuncu

Öztürk

(2020). Problemli medya kullanım ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması: Çocuklarda ekran bağımlılığıölçeği ebeveyn formu. Erken Çocukluk Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.24130/eccd-jecs.1967202043237

19.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.

20.

Guzmán-Simón

Gil-Flores

Pacheco-Costa

(2020). Home literacy environment and reading comprehension in Spanish primary education. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12299

21.

Heath

S. M.

Bishop

D. V.

Bloor

K. E.

Boyle

G. L.

Fletcher

Hogben

J. H.

Wigley

C. A.

Yeong

S. H.

(2014). A spotlight on preschool: The influence of family factors on children’s early literacy skills. PloS One, 9(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095255

22.

Wang

Liu

(2023). Association of screen exposure with psychosocial problems in primary school students. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 10, Article 961137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.961137

23.

Incognito

Pinto

(2023). Longitudinal effects of family and school context on the development on emergent literacy skills in preschoolers. Current Psychology, 42(12), 9819–9829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02274-6

24.

Jacob

R. S.

John

Bellon-Harn

M. L.

Manchaiah

(2024). Exploring maternal interactions during shared book readings in Indian home contexts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(6), 1011–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01487-7

25.

Johnson

R. B.

Christensen

(2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage Publications.

26.

Kalkan

(2008). Televizyon yayınlarındaki zararlı içerikten küçüğün korunması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Ankara.

27.

Kennedy

T. L. M.

(2011). Weaving the home web: A Canadian case study of internet domestication [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.

28.

Kılıç

Doğan

M. C.

Özden

(2017). Aile okuryazarlığıölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. HAYEF Journal of Education, 14(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.26650/hayef.2017.14.2.0021

29.

Luo

(2022). Association of parental screen addiction with young children’s screen addiction: A chain-mediating model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), Article 12788. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912788

30.

Liu

(2024). What children learn in a digital home: The complex influence of parental mediation and smartphone interference. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 6273–6291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12071-2

31.

Livingstone

Blum-Ross

(2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford University Press.

32.

Livingstone

Helsper

E. J.

(2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396

33.

Lodico

Voegtle

(2010). Methods in educational: From theory to practice. Jossey-Bass.

34.

Lynch

Prins

(2023). Knowledge to support early educators and elementary school teachers’ engagement in family literacy and family literacy programs. The Reading Teacher, 76(5), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2187

35.

Madigan

Browne

Racine

Mori

Tough

(2019). Association between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056

36.

Morrow

(2020). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (9th ed.). Pearson.

37.

Nergis

(2008). İlköğretim birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin ön okuryazarlık davranışları ile annelerinin okuryazarlığa olan ilgisi arasındaki ilişki [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi.

38.

Pahl

Rowsell

(2020). Living literacies: Literacy for social change. MIT Press.

39.

Peixoto

Cadima

Leal

(2022). Mothers’ educational level and literacy beliefs: Associations with home literacy experiences. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2025580

40.

Ponti

(2023). Screen time and preschool children: Promoting health and development in a digital world. Paediatrics & Child Health, 28(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxac125

41.

Yan

Yin

(2023). Screen time among school-aged children of aged 6–14: A systematic review. Global Health Research and Policy, 8(12), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00297-z

42.

Rahman

M. N. A.

Tang

Chew

F. P.

(2024). Does socioeconomic status moderate the relationship between parental ınvolvement and young children’s literacy development? International Journal of Instruction, 17(1), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2024.17129a

43.

Rasinski

T. V.

Yates

Foerg

Greene

Paige

Young

Rupley

(2020). Impact of classroom-based fluency instruction on grade one students in an urban elementary school. Education Sciences, 10(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090227

44.

Rasmussen

M. G. B.

Pedersen

Olesen

L. G.

Brage

Klakk

Kristensen

P. L.

Brønd

J. C.

Grøntved

(2020). Short-term efficacy of reducing screen media use on physical activity, sleep, and physiological stress in families with children aged 4–14: Study protocol for the SCREENS randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 20, Article 380. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8458-6

45.

Riser

Q. H.

Rouse

H. L.

Choi

J. Y.

(2020). The contribution of home literacy context to preschool academic competencies for American Indian and Alaska native children. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09529-1

46.

Sénéchal

LeFevre

J. A.

(2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 85(4), 1552–1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12222

47.

Sevinç

Kuvvet

(2007). 4-6 Yaş grubu çocukların okuma-yazma kavramlarının gelişimine ilişkin aile içi etkinliklerin araştırılması. Avrupa Birliği Sürecinde Okul Öncesi Eğitimin Geleceği Sempozyumu. Yapa.

48.

Shou

Nanakida

(2022). Children’s media use: Does ıt matter for social adjustment during the early school transition? Child Indicators Research, 15(6), 2267–2288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-022-09956-y

49.

Skwarchuk

S. L.

Douglas

Cahoon

LeFevre

J. A.

Roy

Simms

Wylie

Maloney

E. A.

Osana

H. P.

Susperreguy

M. I.

(2022). Relations between the home learning environment and the literacy and mathematics skills of eight-year-old Canadian children. Education Sciences, 12(8), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080513

50.

Strasburger

V. C.

Jordan

A. B.

Donnerstein

(2010). Health effects of media on children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 125(4), 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2563

51.

Sucena

Garrido

Marques

Lousada

(2023). Early predictors of reading success in first grade. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1140823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1140823

52.

Szymkowiak

Melović

Dabić

Jeganathan

Kundi

G. S.

(2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65, Article 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565

53.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

54.

Turco

R. G.

Lesaux

N. K.

Jones

S. M.

(2023). Home literacy in the digital era: The role of mobile screen media frequency in a US state. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13259

55.

UNESCO. (2024). What you need to know about literacy. https://www.unesco.org/en/literacy/need-know accessed on 08.05.2024

56.

Yu-Ting

Li-Xiang

Miao

Yong-Wei

Ting

(2025). Excessive screen time and problem behaviours among school-age children in Fujian, China: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21795-4

57.

Zvoch

Reynolds

R. E.

Parker

R. P.

(2008). Full-day kindergarten and student literacy growth: Does a lengthened school day make a difference? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.08.001

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Examination of First Grade Mothers’ Literacy Levels,Competence in Building a Reading Culture and Awareness of Their Children’s Media Use

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introductıon

Method

Research Design

Participants

Instruments

Procedure

Data Analyses

Result

Descriptive Statistics for Problematic Media Use, Family Literacy, and Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Relationships Between Participants’ Family Literacy, Children’s Problematic Media Use and Parents’ Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Regression Analysis on Whether Participants’ Problematic Media Use and Family Literacy Affected Their Overall Level of Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Group Differences in Family Literacy, Competence in Creating a Reading Culture and Awareness of Children’s Problematic Media Use

Discussion

Descriptive Statistics for Problematic Media Use, Family Literacy and Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Relationships Between Participants’ Family Literacy, Children’s Problematic Media Use, and Parents’ Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Regression Analysis on Whether Participants’ Problematic Media Use and Family Literacy Affected Their Overall Level of Competence in Creating a Reading Culture

Group Differences in Family Literacy, Competence in Creating a Reading Culture and Awareness of Children’s Problematic Media Use

Limitations

Recommendation

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251383082 – Supplemental material for Examination of First Grade Mothers’ Literacy Levels, Competence in Building a Reading Culture and Awareness of Their Children’s Media Use

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material