Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

Julie Vaiopoulou; Stamatios Papadakis; Eirini Sifaki; Dimitrios Stamovlasis; Michail Kalogiannakis

doi:10.3390/bs11060082

Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

Vaiopoulou, Julie;Papadakis, Stamatios;Sifaki, Eirini;Stamovlasis, Dimitrios;Kalogiannakis, Michail 2021-05-27 00:00:00 behavioral sciences Article Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Proﬁles 1 2 , 3 4 Julie Vaiopoulou , Stamatios Papadakis * , Eirini Sifaki , Dimitrios Stamovlasis and Michail Kalogiannakis Department of Education, University of Nicosia, 2417 Nicosia, Cyprus; vaiopoulou.cp@unic.ac.cy Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, University of Crete, 74100 Crete, Greece; mkalogian@uoc.gr Department of Cultural Organisations Management, Hellenic Open University, 26222 Patras, Greece; sifaki.eirini@ac.eap.gr Department of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; stadi@auth.gr * Correspondence: stpapadakis@uoc.gr Abstract: Contemporary mobile technologies offer tablets and smartphones that elicit young chil- dren’s active participation in various educational apps, dramatically transforming playing, learning, and communication. Even the most knowledgeable users face difﬁculties in deciding about the value and appropriateness of the so-called educational apps because of many factors that should be considered. Their importance for children’s attitudes is affected by the perceived positive and Citation: Vaiopoulou, J.; Papadakis, negative aspects, which vary across a multiplicity of criteria. Filling the gap in the relevant literature, S.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; a new instrument, named PEAU-p (Perceptions about Educational Apps Use–parents), was devel- Kalogiannakis, M. Parents’ oped and validated in the present study designed to measure parents’ perception of educational Perceptions of Educational Apps Use apps for kindergarten pupils. Data (N = 435) were collected via online procedures, and the psycho- for Kindergarten Children: metric properties of PEAU-p were studied via exploratory and conﬁrmatory methods. Principal Development and Validation of a Components Analysis extracted six factors, namely Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Worries, and Values, which explained 72.42% of the total variance. Subsequently, by implementing Exploration of Parents’ Proﬁles. Behav. Latent Class Analysis based on the above factors, four Clusters (i.e., parents’ Proﬁles) were extracted Sci. 2021, 11, 82. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/bs11060082 corresponding to their perceptions and attitudes towards the educational apps used for kindergarten pupils. Those were named as ‘mild attitude’, ‘negative attitude’, ‘positive attitude’, and ‘indifferent Academic Editor: Dario Bacchini attitude’. This categorization, besides the statistical support, is fully interpretable, and the proﬁles were associated with certain covariates, such as age, the number of children, knowledge on new Received: 26 April 2021 technologies, or distal outcomes, e.g., the frequency of using apps, the general position towards apps Accepted: 17 May 2021 or their intention to recommend apps use. The ﬁndings are discussed within the current research Published: 27 May 2021 ﬁeld, investigating the inﬂuential role parents play in young children’s media selection and use. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Keywords: educational apps; parent’s perception; PEAU-p; LCA; parents’ proﬁles with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁl- iations. 1. Introduction Since Apple launched iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010, people worldwide have been attracted to and fascinated by touchscreen devices [1,2]. Touchscreen devices provide Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. an intuitive and straightforward method of management. Compared to the customary Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. systems, the interactive screens did not require special motor skills and became easy to use This article is an open access article even for young children [3]. Studies with young children have shown that basic operations, distributed under the terms and such as opening apps, and tracing shapes, or swiping the screen, are efﬁciently utilized [4]. conditions of the Creative Commons These devices also offer the advantage of speed, ease of learning, and ﬂexibility [5]. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The learning advantages of smart mobile devices have been acknowledged by many creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ scholars and researchers [6], and comparisons with the usage of traditional devices showed 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11060082 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 2 of 17 that the new interactive units provide the opportunity for more efﬁcient learning [7–9]. Preschoolers might beneﬁt speciﬁcally in areas such as the development of basic skills (reading, writing, and mathematics), improvement of basic cognitive and emotional skills, support of collaboration, etc. [10–12]. Studies employing experimental designs with control groups provided empirical evidence for the positive impact in math achievement when using apps at home [13,14], when compared to standard classroom practice [15], or even when compared to placebo control, i.e., a non-educational app [16]. Recent reviews on the impact of educational apps (e.g., [17]) have shown beneﬁts not only on mathematics but also on literacy development, science, problem-solving, and self-efﬁcacy. Using apps in a fully interactive learning environment is stimulating for children who might be tired of the typical learning model [18]. When children use them, they may experience fun and joy while simultaneously facing challenging activities, exploring unknown territories, and being creative by producing new texts expressing their ideas and thoughts and connecting them with real-life [19]. Acknowledging this, the American Academy of Pediatrics, when referring to the mobile app technology, endorsed its usage and highlighted that it is essential and necessary for children and parents to be engaged together [20]. It is pertinent to mention at this point that the positive ﬁndings mentioned above are not fully supported in the case of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (e.g., [21]). In many parts of the world, children’s use of media has become part of a “family- based media ecology” ([22], p. 7) since both children and parents participate in everyday home activities implementing touch screen devices [3,17,23]. Over 50% of the educational apps available in the market are offered to preschool pupils, while parents recognize their educational value, approve app usage, and seek to purposefully and meaningfully incorporate touchscreens into simple literacy instruction [24–27]. American research has shown that the number of children below eight years old using mobile media at home became three times larger during 2013–2017, and this increase is anticipated to continue. Comparable estimates were reported in developed countries globally [4,27]. A survey in the USA indicated that 90% of toddlers below two years old have experienced playing with a touchscreen, and 73% of children between ﬁve and eight years old have been using tablets regularly. In a study of low-income families in the United States, it was found that 75% of the children possess and use mobile devices by the age of four, while it was reported by Common Sense Media (2013) that nearly 60% of the parents in the USA installed educational apps for their children [28–30]. 1.1. The Parental Role in Preschooler Educational App Usage Parents and teachers are looking for such resources that offer play, entertainment, and learning; on the other hand, designers try to satisfy those needs and supply the market with interactive content apps for children [31]. Parents of preschoolers acting as ’media gatekeepers’ play a crucial role in children–app interactions because they decide about the digital technology selection, the type, and the frequency of its use. Their permission or conditional consent signiﬁcantly affects the child’s attitude and engagement within the ensuing interaction process. It is acknowledged, given the integrated home technologies, that when parents make appropriate choices and encourage children to be engaged with high-quality apps, they could scaffold children’s cognitive development, are imaginary, and learn via a self-driven inquiry [17,32–35]. Research on parents and app usage at home indicated that it could be beneﬁcial for all family members, offering rich interactive material, endowing parents’ awareness, and promoting their skills to effectively expedite their children’s experiences. Thus, parents are responsible for the choices, and they should be cautious, avoiding those digital products that usually do not promote creativity [36,37]. Even though parents’ involvement in selecting and implementing preschool children apps is crucial, they frequently use them without accurately evaluating their educational quality or their usefulness, an attribute highly dependent on their developmental process and design. Indeed, despite their popularity, some of the products are not suitable for Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 3 of 17 young ages, and, in addition, they do not offer the anticipated prospects for creativity and enjoyment either [34,38,39]. Beyond the advantages of apps mentioned above, even the top products that sup- posedly cover reading and mathematics ability, such as those available in the Apple and Android App Store, enclose a mix of low- and high-quality aspects. Thus, as challenging it may seem, it is the parents’ responsibility to identify the ones that are suitable for use at home and to distinguish them from those that are ill-designed and do not take advantage of all the hardware and software capabilities provided by a smart screen device [40–42]. Even though most parents and caregivers use touchscreen devices for themselves, they may face difﬁculties implementing them with their young children, as often they ignore the appropriate manners to encourage children and the way to attain early learning development at home. This was shown irrespective of the parental views about the digital play of their children. Parents’ knowledge was proved inadequate to support digital game use, and their effects on desired outcomes are rather vague [4,43–49]. However, it was found that parents focus on particular aspects of apps. For example, it is less likely that the parents think about speciﬁc features of educational apps, such as visual and sound effects, than to consider the actual content [50]. The above literature shows that parental perceptions about educational apps are decisive for their use by children because parents determine what types of mobile devices will be in use. 1.2. Studies Examining Parents’ Perceptions about Educational Apps In addition, in the shared experience, parents act as advisors and teachers, affecting their attitudes and facilitating learning outcomes. If parents’ perceptions favor fostering apps, positive habits are established, while critical thinking promotes which types of app content is suitable and worth using [51]. The perceptions and behaviors in question, however, are not uniform. Some perceptions are inclined towards selecting apps with educational and learning values, while some others emphasize the value adhered to fun and entertainment [34,50] or seeing these “screen-viewing activities as a babysitter/coping mechanism and a device to wake up or wind down young children” ([52], p. 124). Parents have predominately exhibited ﬁve needs as far the apps use is concerned, i.e., to attain acquaintance, pass the time, get entertainment, acquire coeducation, and face personalized challenges [34]. These different needs vary among individuals and might determine or are part of distinct parenting styles, which could be inﬂuenced by demographics, the family’s climate, parents’ related knowledge and skills, parents’ general approach to media, and the speciﬁc context question [53]. Moreover, other variables have been sporadically reported related to the issue under investigation, such as the marital status and the parents’ education. The higher the edu- cation level of parents, the lesser the involvement of children at young ages with screens, while the opposite is observed at lower educational levels, where children are strongly encouraged to be engaged with screen media [1,54]. However, the effects of individual characteristics associated with parents’ perceptions of educational app implementation have not been systematically explored. The initial literature review exhibits a volume of ac- cumulated knowledge, which dictates further research focused on parents’ beliefs and their constructive attitudes on app use, as it could predict their behavior in interaction settings with children [44,55–59]. The reported empirical evidence suggests that the implementation of digital media by both parent and child at home is directly inﬂuenced by parental views and perception about digital technology [60]. That is the perceived usefulness and efﬁcacy of apps as entertainment or educational tools to inﬂuence the crucial decisions for the availability and accessibility of these technologies at home [55,61]. Among the inﬂuential factors, several variables related to emotions, worries, and uncertainty present in parents’ decision-making. This leads to an interesting observation that the parental views in ques- tion have expressed as polarized positions, often as strictly positive or negative attitudes towards the implications of the digital technology use for their children’s lives [61–64]. Frequently, these seemingly opposite standpoints coexist, positing interesting questions for Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 4 of 17 further research. Parents acknowledge the potential beneﬁts of mobile devices [10,64–66], but simultaneously, they express some concerns about the possible drawbacks of mobile device use [62,67]. The two opposing attitudes are apparent in everyday discourses. Many parents show enthusiasm for including smart screen technology in the preschool education curricula and acknowledge them as an excellent prospect for preparing young children for their following formal education. On the other hand, other parents emphasize some negative aspects of smart screen technology, and they provide limited opportunities to use it or even prohibit it together [56,62]. Analogously to the past period, research focused on other media, e.g., television, nowadays, educational apps’ experience attracts attention. The research interest has shifted to their implementation and the crucial role of parental involvement [34,68]. The present study investigates this contemporary issue and contributes by presenting an instrument to measure parents’ perceptions of apps and explore their psychometric properties. Moreover, a person-centered approach was implemented, and based on selected individual differences, parents’ proﬁles were revealed describing their attitudes towards apps’ use. Parents’ perceptions of app users have been accessed previously via qualitative interviews or questionnaires (e.g., [32,50,69]) focusing on various aspects. This work proposes a new scale including dimensions that have not been examined so far and provides its psychometric analysis. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Questions Probing to understand parents’ perceptions and attitudes towards using educational apps by their children primarily requires a valid instrument and a method for measuring them. Parents’ perceptions of apps that create attitudes towards them are probably varying across a few factors and criteria, or the dimensions of the latent variables under study, which ﬁnally determines their overall position towards educational apps. In this work, ﬁlling a gap in the literature, the new instrument, named PEAU-p (Perceptions about Educational Apps Use—parents), was developed to measure parents’ perceptions of the apps use. Furthermore, it was implemented to explore their constructive attitudes towards them. Based on this initiative and within the premise growing via the abovementioned rich literature, several research questions were formulated: 1. What are the psychometric characteristics of the PEAU-p instrument, including the validity and reliability issues? 2. Based on measured parents’ perceptions on app use: Are there distinct groups/clusters of parents sharing typical proﬁles reﬂecting formative attitudes? 3. Are the ensued cluster memberships/proﬁles associated with other individual differ- ences acting as covariates or distal outcomes? 2.2. Participants and Procedures Participants were 435 parents who completed the PEAU-p questionnaire online. The majority (95.9%) were mothers with ages varying from 21 to 50 years old (median = 35, mean = 36.88, SD = 5.21). The number of children varied from 1 to 4 (mean = 1.68, SD = 1.51). The study was a cross-sectional survey using an electronic sampling process via social media groups. The implemented self-completion questionnaire (PEAU-p) for parents was uploaded on a web-based form via Google Forms, and parents completed it anony- mously. The escorting cover letter provided all relevant information, such as elucidating the purpose of the study, the conﬁdentiality of the process, and the voluntary character of the participation, without ﬁnancial incentives. The protocol was following procedures approved by the Research Ethics Committee from the University of Crete, Greece. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 5 of 17 2.3. Measures The PEAU-p is a new instrument designed for measuring parents’ perceptions of app use. The scale was proposed after extensive preliminary work, including studying the relevant literature, theoretical considerations, and the use of valid questions chosen from IT literature, but adopted and reﬁned for the current. Moreover, the new items generated focused on providing the empirical indices for the dimensions conceived to describe the latent variable under investigation. The initially proposed form of PEAU-p was developed via intensive expert-team work and elaboration process that assured, at least at a theoretical level, validity issues, further explored via statistical methods in the next phase. In PEAU-p, the latent variable under investigation encompasses six dimensions, named: Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values. For the six theoretically conceived dimensions, 27 items were used that remained in the ﬁnal form of PEAU-p after the exploratory and validation procedures implemented on an initial battery of 39 items. Besides the PEAU-p items, the questionnaire included two other types of questions: (1) variables that provide demographic information (e.g., gender, age, educational level, number of children, age of children) and (2) several items, operationalizing as relevant attitudinal or cognitive variables, such as, “What is the level of your knowledge on New Technologies?”, “Do you think that kids spend too much time on screens?”, “How often do you use apps with your children?”, “How old was your kid when you start using educational apps?”, “Does the use of apps cause conﬂicts between you and your children?”, “What is your overall position towards educational apps?” and “How possible is to recom- mend educational apps to other parents?”. The above items (measured on a 7-point Likert scale) were associated as independent or dependent variables with the parents’ attitudinal proﬁles ensued from subsequent analyses. 3. Results 3.1. Exploratory (EFA) and Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) In the EFA procedure, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was applied. Initially, a rescaled transformation (CATPCA procedure; [70]) was applied to the initial ordinal data to make the resulting scale suitable for PCA. Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( = 8045.29, p < 0.0001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index (0.889) indicated adequate variance for factor analysis. The number of factors was decided based on the screen plot and the Kaiser Criterion, eigenvalue greater than 1. Six factors were extracted. In addition, an auxiliary analysis of Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and parallel analysis using Monte Carlo simulation resulted in the same dimensionality. A PCA analysis was conducted using an initial pool of 39 items. The reﬁnement with Varimax rotation and keeping only items with loadings more signiﬁcant than 0.40 resulted in a ﬁnal interpretable structure using 27 items. The six factors explained 72.42% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the corresponding eigenvalues for Usability (US), Enjoyment (EN), Involvement (IN), Learning (LE), Worries (W), and Values (VA), which are 2.46, 3.45, 1.98, 4.76, 4.12, and 2.80, respectively, while the corresponding portions of variance explained were 9.10%, 12.78%, 7.33%, 17.61% 15.25% and 10.36%, respectively (see Table 1). Subsequently, conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the proposed model was applied to the second part of the data using LISREL8 procedures. The proposed 6-factor structure ﬁtted in a CFA model adequately ( /df = 1.23, p = 0.06, CFI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.027, 90% CI of RMSEA = [0.000; 0.040], SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.90; NFI = 0.957 and NNFI = 0.993). The factorial validity of the proposed structure is sufﬁciently supported; however, it might be worthwhile mentioning that applying an ESEM (exploratory structural equation modeling) approach that allows cross-loadings in two items, an even better ﬁt is, expectantly, achieved (e.g., [71]). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 6 of 17 Table 1. Structure Factors of PEAU-p. Results from PCA with Varimax rotation. Factors LE W EN VA US IN F4-Q17. Facilitate new knowledge 0.776 acquisition. F4-Q18. Enhance a child’s language 0.761 development. F4-Q21. Promote creative thinking. 0.751 F4-Q16. Contribute to the cognitive 0.747 development F4-Q19. Facilitate foreign languages 0.740 learning F4-Q20. Offer feedback in case of 0.723 error. F4-Q15. Promote logical thinking. 0.681 F5-Q28. Undermine children 0.890 development F5-Q29. They create health problems. 0.844 F5-Q27. Problems are due to 0.837 radiation. F5-Q30. Reduces quality interaction 0.798 with parents. F5-Q31. Cause introversion in 0.773 children. F2-Q06. They offer pleasant sounds. 0.881 F2-Q05. They enclose pleasant 0.851 images. F2-Q08. They contain fun characters 0.850 for kids. F2-Q07. They entertain the children. 0.727 F7-Q37. They are complemented by 0.890 traditional teaching. F6-Q38. They offer multimedia 0.868 teaching material. F6-Q39. They strengthen the 0.783 motivation for learning. F6-Q36. They create an effective 0.544 learning environment. F6-Q03. They provide instructions 0.775 suitable for children of this age. F1-Q01. They are easy to use by 0.757 children. F1-Q04. Children easily understand 0.721 the content. F1-Q02. Children can use them 0.655 without the guidance of an adult. F3-Q12. They capture the child’s 0.833 attention. F3-Q11. They capture the child’s 0.800 interest. F3-Q14. They create an addiction to 0.580 the child. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of the six factors, the means, the standard devia- tions, and the corresponding reliability coefﬁcients. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 78 to 89, denoting satisfactory internal consistency. These six factors were subsequently used, as input variables, in the LCA procedure. Enjoyment Learning Outcomes Involvement Usability Values Worries Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 7 of 17 Table 2. Correlation matrix of the six factors, Cronbach’s , and a number of items. US EN IN LE W VA Alpha Items Usability 1 0.782 4 Enjoyment 0.478 ** 1 0.898 4 Involvement 0.345 ** 0.308 ** 1 0.768 3 Learning 0.343 ** 0.496 ** 0.103 * 1 0.896 7 Worries 0.028 0.112 * 0.379 ** 0.301 ** 1 0.889 5 Values 0.279 ** 0.406 ** 0.111 * 0.575 ** 0.212 ** 1 0.882 4 Mean 4.57 5.24 5.88 4.32 4.96 4.31 SD 1.08 1.18 1.04 1.11 1.33 1.33 3.2. Latent Class Analysis—Parents’ Proﬁles In the next phase, Latent Class Analysis was carried out to reveal distinct groups/clusters or latent classes of participants sharing common proﬁles. In LCA, the cases/respondents in a latent class are considered homogeneous regarding the model’s parameters that describe the pattern of their responses [72]. The procedure assigns the participants to class/cluster membership based on conditional probabilities characterizing each latent class. The clus- ter/latent class predictions are achieved via the posterior probability of belonging to a class C, given an observed response pattern y, p(c/y), by applying Bayes’ theorem, which also employs the p(y/c), the conditional probability of y given c, and p(c) and p(y), i.e., the probabilities of c and observed pattern y, respectively [73]. Several indexes assess the latent-class model-ﬁt, i.e., the number of parameters, entropy-R2, likelihood ratio statistic (L2), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), degrees of freedom, and bootstrapped p-value. LCA is a powerful method having numerous applications in a wide range of disci- plines and ﬁelds. In educational research, LCA has been proved an effective tool in deriving participants’ proﬁles and answering challenging research questions. Mentioning some indicative investigations would include exploring students’ predictions and explanations of physical phenomena (e.g., [74]), testing contradictory theoretical perspectives, such as the coherence vs. fragmented knowledge hypotheses (e.g., [75–77]). In addition, it should be emphasized that LCA is a psychometric approach and has a series of advantages over the traditional cluster analysis [73]. In the present analysis, the step-wise method was used, which has three steps: (a) the primary latent categorical variable is identiﬁed based on a set of indicators, (b) the participants are assigned to latent classes/proﬁles, and (c) the ensued class membership is associated with covariates or distal outcomes [78,79]. Figure 1 shows the latent variable model with the measurement and the structural parts. In the ﬁrst step of the LCA, the latent classes/proﬁles were identiﬁed using the six factors of PEAU-p (Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values) as input. In the second step, the parents were allocated to latent classes/proﬁles utilizing the modal assignment approach, along with the maximum likelihood (ML) bias correction [78]. A detailed illustrative description of the three-step LCA applied to educational research can be found in Stamovlasis, Papageorgiou, Tsitsipis, Tsikalas, and Vaiopoulou [80]. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 8 of 17 Figure 1. The latent variable model with the measurement and the structural parts. The results of the LCA ﬁrst step are shown in Table 3. The four-cluster solution had the minimum value of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and it was chosen as the best parsimonious model (entropy-R = 0.80, df = 383, classiﬁcation-error = 0.1320, BIC = 5252.87, Npar = 51). Table 3. Latent Class Analysis. LCA. 2 2 LL BIC(LL) Npar L df p-Value Class.Err. Entropy R 1-Cluster 2699.08 5471.04 12 922.07 422 0.00 0.00 1 2-Cluster 2566.25 5284.32 25 656.40 409 0.00 0.0956 0.68 3-Cluster 2514.06 5258.89 38 552.02 396 0.02 0.1461 0.68 4-Cluster 2471.57 5252.87 51 467.05 383 0.25 0.1320 0.80 5-Cluster 2450.55 5289.78 64 425.02 370 0.34 0.1606 0.74 6-Cluster 2439.45 5346.52 77 402.80 357 0.38 0.1643 0.73 Figure 2 presents the ensued proﬁles in terms of conditional probabilities depicted on the vertical axis, while the horizontal axis shows the six dimensions of the PEAU-p scale. Cluster/Proﬁle 1 (31.31%) includes parents with perceived low Usability, Enjoyment, Values and Worries, and medium perceived Involvement and Learning. This was named the Mild Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 2 (29.07%) includes parents with perceived low Usability, Enjoyment, Values, Learning, but with perceived high Involvement and Worries. This was named the Negative Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 3 (20.5%) includes parents with medium Worries and perceived high the other ﬁve dimensions (Usability, Enjoyment, Values, Involvement, and Learning). This was named the Positive Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 4 (19.13%) includes parents with low all six perceived dimensions. This was named the Indifferent Attitude proﬁle. Table 4 presents a verbal description of the four proﬁles. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 9 of 17 Figure 2. Proﬁles of the four clusters/Proﬁles in terms of the conditional probabilities are depicted on the vertical axis, while the horizontal axis shows the six dimensions of the PEAU-p scale. Table 4. A verbal description of the four Clusters/Proﬁles. Cluster 1/Proﬁle 1 Cluster 2/Proﬁle 2 Cluster 3/Proﬁle 3 Cluster 4/Proﬁle 4 31.31% 29.07% 20.50% 19.13% Usability Low Low High Low Enjoyment Low Low High Low Involvement Medium High High Low Learning Medium Low High Low Worries Low High Medium Low Values Low Low High Low Mild Attitude Negative Attitude Positive Attitude Indifferent Attitude 3.3. Association of the Proﬁles with Other Variables 3.3.1. Effect of Independent Variable on Parents’ Proﬁles In the next step, the cluster/proﬁle membership was associated with covariates; the latter considered independent factors affecting the former. The following variables were examined: Parents’ age, number of children, the age of the 1st child, the age of the 2nd child, parents’ knowledge of new technologies, parents’ level of education, and parents’ perception of time spent by children on screens (Table 5). Parents’ age is associated negatively with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude). Parents who do not appreciate educational apps and perceive high involvement and worry about their children’s use are probably the younger ones (b = 0.075, p < 0.001). This could be explained by the fact that the younger parents have the younger children; thus, they are directly concerned with exhibiting intense worries. Note that the average age was 36.88 (SD = 5.21). This is in line with the ﬁnding that Proﬁle 4, i.e., the ‘Indifferent,’ is associated positively with age (b = 0.06, p < 0.01). The number of children is associated positively with both Proﬁle 2/ Negative Attitude (b = 0.29, p < 0.01) and Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude (b = 0.42, p < 0.001). Given that the number of children is examined as an independent variable, one may reason that the parents with more children appear divided, i.e., there is a segment of those parents who perceive the involvement with apps as high and worry about their children’s use of apps and a segment that highly appreciates apps and worries less. Knowledge of new technologies affects positively Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude and negatively Proﬁle 4/ Indifferent attitude. That is, parents with the higher knowledge of new technologies greatly appreciate apps Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 10 of 17 most probably belong to Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude (b = 0.41, p < 0.01) and thus worry less about their use, while parents with the lower knowledge on new technologies most probably belong to the ‘Indifferent’ Proﬁle 4 (b = 0.34, p < 0.01). Finally, parents who perceive that the time spent by children on screens is too much most probably belong to Proﬁle 2/ Negative Attitude (b = 0.50, p < 0.001), including those who do not appreciate educational apps and perceive high involvement and worry about their children’s use of them. In contrast, parents with mild and indifferent proﬁles think oppositely (b = 0.23, p < 0.01 and b = 0.48, p < 0.001, respectively). The level of education does not affect any proﬁle formation. Table 5. Effects of covariates with the ensuing parents’ proﬁles. Proﬁle 1/Mild Proﬁle 2/Negative Proﬁle 3/Positive Proﬁle 4/Indifferent Covariates Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude Parent Age 0.02 0.075 *** 0.01 0.06 ** Number of Children 0.31 0.29 ** 0.42 *** 0.39 Age of the 1st Child 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 Age of the 2nd Child 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.09 Knowledge of New Technologies 0.12 0.05 0.41 ** 0.34 ** Perceived crucial time on Apps 0.23 ** 0.50 *** 0.21 0.48 *** Level of Education 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.17 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. 3.3.2. Association of Proﬁles with Dependent Variables The four clusters/proﬁle memberships were considered independent factors associ- ated with distal outcomes, such as the frequency their children use educational apps. Other outcomes were age children started using apps, the perception of a causal relationship between apps use and parent–children conﬂicts, the overall position on apps use, the possibility that the individual would suggest apps to another parent, and the degree the parent is annoyed by children using apps in public (Table 6). Table 6. Effects of parents’ Proﬁle-memberships on distal outcomes. Proﬁle 1/Mild Proﬁle 2/Negative Proﬁle 3/Positive Proﬁle 4/Indifferent Dependents Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude Frequency of use 0.33 * 0.90 *** 0.81 *** 0.24 Child’s age started 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.01 Cause of conﬂicts 0.59 *** 0.61 *** 0.21 0.23 Overall positive Position 0.43 ** 1.27 *** 1.13 *** 0.29 Possibility of recommendation 0.62 *** 1.39 *** 1.23 *** 0.46 ** Annoyed by children’s use of apps 0.19 0.44 ** 0.15 0.13 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. First, no association with the starting age of children’s app use was found. Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude), a parent with negative attitudes and high worries about the apps use, most probably do not use apps often (b = 0.90, p < 0.0001), while a parent in Proﬁle 3 (Positive Attitude), with a positive attitude and low worries, most probably do (b = 0.81, p < 0.0001). Additionally, parents in Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude), contrary to the other proﬁles, do consider that the apps use causes conﬂicts between parents and children to a higher degree (b = 0.61, p < 0.0001). An overall positive position for apps use is strongly exhibited by Proﬁle 3 (b = 1.13, p < 0.0001) and less by Proﬁle 1 (b = 0.43, p < 0.01), while the Proﬁle 2 exhibits negative overall position (b = 1.27, p < 0.001). Similarly, parents in Proﬁle 3 (Positive Attitude) most probably would recommend apps use to other parents (b = 1.23, p < 0.001), and so would parents with Proﬁle 1 (b = 0.62, p < 0.001), while parents with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude) would not (b = 1.39, p < 0.001). Finally, parents who are annoyed by children’s use of apps in public are those with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude) (b = 0.44, p < 0.001). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 11 of 17 4. Discussion 4.1. Psychometric Properties of the PEAU-p Focusing on the research questions concerning PEAU-p, it was shown that the pro- posed new instrument, designed to measure parents’ perception of apps used by kinder- garten children, possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The factorial validity demonstrated by CFA meets adequate ﬁt, while the values of Cronbach’s alpha for each factor are by far satisfactory, ensuring high reliability. The six factors structure: Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values, is interpretable, including the dimensions upon which parents can base their mindset and appraise the use of educa- tional apps. The above dimensions are implicitly or explicitly encountered in the relevant literature. Many researchers have highlighted that educational apps should contain a learning goal and be mentally activating, engaging, socially interactive, contain meaningful learning [81,82]. Guided by the evidence-based assumption that parental engagement in technology use is by far inﬂuential [53,83], the present study has provided insights for (a) the properties that parents identify in apps for young children, (b) how parents appraise those features, and (c) how those features of apps are in line with parents’ anticipations and needs when they consider them for use by their children. The PEAU-p is an instrument available to researchers for investigating those relationships and comprises a valuable tool for the continuous contribution to theory building in this ﬁeld. Our work extended previous endeavors by establishing that young children’s parental perceptions regarding digital media use are a multi-dimensional construct [53]. 4.2. Parents’ Proﬁles Regarding Perceptions about Apps Use Having designed a valid and germane apparatus, a methodological choice was made to further explore the latent variables under study by implementing a person-centered approach instead of an alternative variable-centered approach to investigate potentially formative attitudes of parents. In this approach, the basic assumption, from the psychomet- ric theory point of view, is that the observed pattern of responses in a set of questions is due to the existence of latent variables that are categorical in nature. In other words, given a set of criteria or attributes, individuals can be identiﬁed as members of distinct groups, possessing comparable levels of those attributes. This categorization process needs robust statistical tools, such as the LCA implemented in this endeavor, to reveal signiﬁcantly different groups/clusters corresponding to interpretable proﬁles. This part of the analysis answered the second research question and showed four parents’ proﬁles, characterized by different attitudes toward the apps’ use. We found that parents with distinct proﬁles may have opposing perceptions and, thus, they are expected to make different decisions for their children. Literature reports that discovering parents’ beliefs about children’s apps enhances our understanding of parents’ decision-making process in selecting apps for their children [50]. The present classiﬁcation scheme, resulting from LCA, is the ﬁrst one reported in the ﬁeld, which, quantitatively and qualitatively, documented parents’ viewpoints potentially affect children and shape their appropriate screen viewing from early childhood. Determining a typology of parents’ perceptions and farther their beliefs and attitudes on apps, one assesses their set of coherent judgments that could be character- ized along the lines of the current debate on young children’s apps use in home settings. The revealed latent proﬁles can serve as a causal interpretation of the observed parents’ behavior and choices reported in the relevant literature. The results of this research are in line with the ﬁndings of other studies, where it has been shown that parents have speciﬁc mindsets and needs to satisfy when selecting apps for their children [4,34,44,46,65,84,85]. They desire apps fostering independent entertainment [86], encouraging coeducation be- tween parents and children, and providing personalized and challenging content to their child [44]. When it comes to young children, some issues arise regarding the suitability and the potential proﬁts of using these technologies with educational apps. The appropriate technology matching with children’s developmental needs can help their cognitive growth and learning outcomes, especially when families control the issue Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 12 of 17 and actively play their supportive role. It presupposes, of course, sensibly designed and attentively applied technology for gaining the beneﬁts of accelerating, amplifying, and expanding the anticipated impact [87]. Parents’ attitudes and actions regarding apps use are active and decisive, forbidding or allowing and encouraging children to use apps in their everyday lives. Parents often pursue the apps that primarily entertain and encourage their children to be autonomous, considering that they would favorably respond to this involvement. It was reported that participants with at least one child aged between 3 to 7 years old required apps developmentally compatible with the child’s age, his/her actual needs with exceptional design and personalized content [34]. 4.3. Individual Differences on Parents’ Proﬁles Parents’ perceptions and attitudes on app use by children are affected by a multiplicity of individual differences. For instance, research reports have indicated that parent edu- cation and socioeconomic status (SES) are related to app consumption habits. Children who watch more television and play more video games most likely belong to families with lower SES and parents with low education levels. These differences and the digital gap are being ameliorated, given that these technologies with promising learning beneﬁts are globally increased [39,88,89]. 4.4. Contribution to the Research Field The present report adds to our knowledge on those potentially inﬂuential factors by revealing some other individual differences. This is related to the third research question concerning the association of the ensued parents’ proﬁles with other variables, acting as covariates or distal outcomes. The latent classes in question, as dependent variables, are correlated to parents’ age, number of children, and parents’ knowledge level on new technologies. Moreover, the latent proﬁles as independent variables signiﬁcantly affect the frequency of apps use, perceptions of conﬂicts between parent-child, the overall position on apps use, the possibility of recommending apps use to other parents, and the degree of annoyance children’s use of apps. Of course, in the above association, the arrow of causality is deﬁned by the researcher, and, besides the worth of knowing them for theoretical and practical purposes, they are critical because they add to validity considerations, as far as the psychometric measurement and the classiﬁcation procedure, is concerned, since all of them are meaningful, establishing reasonable and interpretable relationships. To this end, the present work contributes to the relevant empirical research literature with an increasing interest that comprises a growing area of investigations. 4.5. Limitations and Future Directions The present study has some limitations that constrain the implications of the ﬁndings. The study uses cross-sectional data, which did not evaluate whether the relations demon- strated here are sustained over time. Future research could investigate the stability of these relations during the elementary school years through longitudinal studies. In addition, the ﬁndings cannot be generalized to a speciﬁc population since the sampling process did not cover detailed geographic areas and demographic characteristics. Another limitation might concern the data collection procedure, which was conducted via an online questionnaire. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the vast majority were mothers, which prevented exploring gender differences among parents. Finally, the study was correlational and did not allow ﬁrm causal inferences. Based on the current work and other studies in the literature, one might design interventions aimed explicitly at selected aspects of the models presented here, e.g., interventions on parental stereotypes or parents’ beliefs and attitudes about apps. The proposed tool to measure parental perceptions and the methodology implemented can serve as valuable assets in subsequent inquiries probing the respective perception of parents and the differences between them regarding varying attitudes and behaviors as far the use of educational apps. In the future, it would be interesting to investigate the Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 13 of 17 extent to which the parenting styles could be associated with variations in individual needs. For instance, if authoritative or permissive parenting style impacts parents’ perceptions and attitudes and how they affect young children on the issues addressed in the paper. The ensued parental proﬁles may be studied with other individual differences, while interventions or longitudinal studies, probing mechanisms of change and overcoming resistance to using educational apps, could be designed and carried out in the light of the present ﬁndings. 5. Conclusions The present endeavor adds to the research area on technology and childhood by investigating parental perceptions and attitudes on early childhood educational apps. The contribution of this work is primarily on theory building since it explored, via the designed and validated instrument, PEAU-p, the latent variables determining the mediating role of parents, and provided interpretation of their actions and practices. Providing the optimal learning environment for their children is a challenge for many families. While it is acknowledged that educational apps can help children build academic competence, such as literacy, numeracy, and social skills, and, in the end, to become more prepared for school education, parents do not always conform with this evidence-based postulate. There are counterviews and opposing opinions of parents, preventing the appropriate choices and practices from being fostered. Given the plethora of factors, problems arise from their inability to distinguish the educational value of an app. Moreover, issues originate from personal worries and doubts. LCA attained a classi- ﬁcation of those characteristics, and since it is a model-based method, the ensued latent classes represent speciﬁc trends that could be generalized in the population. According to the present ﬁndings, only 20.5% of the participants were positively aligned with the apps’ implementation (Cluster/Proﬁle 3). A total of 19.13% of the sample is indifferent and apathetic towards educational apps (Cluster/Proﬁle4). In addition, 31.31% of the sample shows a mild (positive) attitude (Cluster/Proﬁle 1), while 29.07% of the sample is totally against (negative attitude proﬁle) to educational apps (Cluster/Proﬁle 2). Excluding indifferent Proﬁle 4, which would require a differentiated approach to be understood, Proﬁles 2 and 4 attract the primary attention. In Proﬁle 2 (negative attitude), parents express doubts about possible harm due to hardware technology and high involvement with psychological implications. On the other hand, Proﬁle 1, with mild attitudes, could be viewed as representing an intermediate or transition state between Proﬁles 2 and 3. An emergent question and potential hypothesis divide those tendencies, and how to shift between stages could be attained. The strength of the various perceptions demarcates the differences between proﬁles set by the classiﬁcation method. At this point, it is pertinent to highlight that those perceptions, most likely, are formed by or due to misinformation, lack of knowledge, and dysfunctional beliefs that operate under bounded rationality [90]. These crucial determinants of the underlying mindsets regarding potential changes and shifts in attitudes and behavioral patterns could be approached and explained by the bounded rationality theory [91]. The theoretical and practical implications derived from the ﬁndings of this study contribute to the relevant research ﬁeld by providing early childhood researchers with both an enriched theoretical premise to interpret empirical data and a valid instrument to capture parents’ perceptions, which probably change over time [92,93]. Additionally, educational organizations might use the current ﬁndings to develop programs to inform parents about educational apps by preschool children, emphasizing the speciﬁc issues raised by each proﬁle. This is especially important, as screen time and technological devices have increased due to the demands of the current period of the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing new behaviors and habits for young children. Finally, parents, being aware that using developmentally appropriate technology at home promotes young children’s early development and learning, should re-examine their decisions and choices based Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 14 of 17 on ﬁrm understanding and knowledge about new technologies embedded formally or informally in contemporary education. Author Contributions: All authors share equal contributions for all parts and steps of the study. The authors contributed to the article and have read and approved the ﬁnal version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research did not receive any speciﬁc grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-proﬁt sectors. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Preschool Education of the University of Crete, Greece (14/29.01.2021). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors reported no potential conﬂict of interest. Ethics Statement: The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Crete Ethics and Deontology committee. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. References 1. Levine, L.E.; Waite, B.M.; Bowman, L.L.; Kachinsky, K. Mobile Media Use by Infants and Toddlers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 94, 92–99. [CrossRef] 2. Xie, H.; Peng, J.; Qin, M.; Huang, X.; Tian, F.; Zhou, Z. Can Touchscreen Devices Be Used to Facilitate Young Children’s Learning? A Meta-Analysis of Touchscreen Learning Effect. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2580. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Merchant, G. Keep Taking the Tablets: IPads, Story Apps and Early Literacy. Aust. J. Lang. Lit. 2015, 38, 3–11. 4. Marsh, J.; Plowman, L.; Yamada-Rice, D.; Bishop, J.C.; Lahmar, J.; Scott, F.; Davenport, A.; Davis, S.; French, K.; Piras, M. Exploring Play and Creativity in Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps: Final Project Report. 2015. Available online: www.techandplay.org (accessed on 3 March 2021). 5. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Mobile Educational Applications for Children: What Educators and Parents Need to Know. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2017, 11, 256–277. [CrossRef] 6. Crescenzi-Lanna, L. Emotions, Private Speech, Involvement and Other Aspects of Young Children’s Interactions with Educational Apps. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 111, 106430. [CrossRef] 7. Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.-I. Gamiﬁcation in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 22. [CrossRef] 8. Kucirkova, N.; Cremin, T. Children Reading for Pleasure in the Digital Age: Mapping Reader Engagement; SAGE Publications: California, CA, USA, 2020. 9. Crescenzi Lanna, L.; Grané Oro, M. Touch Gesture Performed by Children under 3 Years Old When Drawing and Coloring on a Tablet. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 124, 1–12. [CrossRef] 10. Colliver, Y.; Hatzigianni, M.; Davies, B. Why Can’t I Find Quality Apps for My Child? A Model to Understand All Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Quality Learning through Digital Play. Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 190, 2612–2626. [CrossRef] 11. McQuiggan, S.; McQuiggan, J.; Sabourin, J.; Kosturko, L. Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Developers, Educators, and Learners; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. 12. Zigh, E.; Elhoucine, A.; Mallek, A.; Kadiri, M.; Belkacem, K.; Ensari, T. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Networking, Information Systems & Security; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5. 13. Berkowitz, T.; Schaeffer, M.W.; Maloney, E.A.; Peterson, L.; Gregor, C.; Levine, S.C.; Beilock, S.L. Math at Home Adds up to Achievement in School. Science 2015, 350, 196–198. [CrossRef] 14. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Zaranis, N. Teaching Mathematics with Mobile Devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education (RME) Approach in Kindergarten. Adv. Mob. Learn. Educ. Res. 2021, 2021, 5–18. [CrossRef] 15. Outhwaite, L.A.; Faulder, M.; Gulliford, A.; Pitchford, N.J. Raising Early Achievement in Math with Interactive Apps: A Randomized Control Trial. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 111, 284–298. [CrossRef] 16. Pitchford, N.J. Development of Early Mathematical Skills with a Tablet Intervention: A Randomized Control Trial in Malawi. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 485. [CrossRef] 17. Grifﬁth, S.F.; Arnold, D.H. Home Learning in the New Mobile Age: Parent–Child Interactions during Joint Play with Educational Apps in the US. J. Child. Media 2019, 13, 1–19. [CrossRef] 18. Missen, M.M.S.; Javed, A.; Asmat, H.; Nosheen, M.; Coustaty, M.; Salamat, N.; Prasath, V.B.S. Systematic Review and Usability Evaluation of Writing Mobile Apps for Children. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2019, 25, 137–160. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 15 of 17 19. Vaiopoulou, J.; Stamovlasis, D.; Papageorgiou, G. New Perspectives for Theory Development in Science Education: Rethinking Mental Models of Force in Primary School. Prog. Educ. 2017, 47, 1–16. 20. American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]. Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics 2016, 138, e20162591. 21. Fletcher-Watson, S.; Petrou, A.; Scott-Barrett, J.; Dicks, P.; Graham, C.; O’Hare, A.; Pain, H.; McConachie, H. A Trial of an IPadTM Intervention Targeting Social Communication Skills in Children with Autism. Autism 2016, 20, 771–782. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Wartella, E.; Rideout, V.; Lauricella, A.R.; Connell, S. Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology. 2013. Available online: https:// cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ParentingAgeDigitalTechnology.REVISED.FINAL_.2014.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 23. Radesky, J.; Weeks, H.; Ball, R.; Schaller, A.; Yeo, S.; Durnez, J.; Barr, R. Mobile Device Sampling: An Unobtrusive, Objective Measure of Child Smartphone and Tablet Use. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e2019351. 24. Callaghan, M.N.; Reich, S.M. Are Educational Preschool Apps Designed to Teach? An Analysis of the App Market. Learn. Media Technol. 2018, 43, 280–293. [CrossRef] 25. Flewitt, R.; Messer, D.; Kucirkova, N. New Directions for Early Literacy in a Digital Age: The IPad. J. Early Child. Lit. 2015, 15, 289–310. [CrossRef] 26. Kucirkova, N.; Flewitt, R. Understanding Parents’ Conﬂicting Beliefs about Children’s Digital Book Reading. J. Early Child. Lit. 2020, 146879842093036. [CrossRef] 27. Rideout, V. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight; Common Sense Media: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017. 28. Kabali, H.K.; Irigoyen, M.M.; Nunez-Davis, R.; Budacki, J.G.; Mohanty, S.H.; Leister, K.P.; Bonner, R.L. Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children. Pediatrics 2015, 136, 1044–1050. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Kucirkova, N. A Taxonomy and Research Framework for Personalization in Children’s Literacy Apps. EMI Educ. Media Int. 2018, 55, 255–272. [CrossRef] 30. Soni, N.; Aloba, A.; Morga, K.S.; Wisniewski, P.J.; Anthony, L.A. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 419–431. 31. Troseth, G.L.; Russo, C.E.; Strouse, G.A. What’s next for Research on Young Children’s Interactive Media? J. Child. Media 2016, 10, 54–62. [CrossRef] 32. Brito, R.; Dias, P. “Which Apps Are Good for My Children?”: How the Parents of Young Children Select Apps. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2020, 26, 100188. [CrossRef] 33. Kewalramani, S.; Palaiologou, I.; Arnott, L.; Dardanou, M. The Integration of the Internet of Toys in Early Childhood Education: A Platform for Multi-Layered Interactions. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2020, 28, 197–213. [CrossRef] 34. Broekman, F.L.; Piotrowski, J.T.; Beentjes, H.W.J.; Valkenburg, P.M. A Parental Perspective on Apps for Young Children. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 142–151. [CrossRef] 35. Yelland, N.J. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Young Children and Multimodal Learning with Tablets. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 847–858. [CrossRef] 36. Christensen, C.; Hoisington, C.; Vahey, P.; Hupert, N.; Pasnik, S. PBS KIDS Play & Learn Science Evaluation Report; Education Development Center, Inc.: New York, NY, USA; SRI International: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2019. 37. Goodwin, K. Highﬁeld, KiTouch and iLearn: An examination of ‘educational’ Apps. In Proceedings of the Early Education and Technology for Children Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 14–16 March 2012; pp. 14–16. 38. Gray, C.; Dunn, J.; Moffett, P.; Mitchell, D. Mobile devices in early learning: Evaluating the use of portable devices to support young children’s learning. Rep. Comm. Irish Educ. Auth. 2017. [CrossRef] 39. Rideout, V.J.; Hamel, E. The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and Their Parents. 2006. Available online: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/7500.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 40. Dubé, A.K.; Alam, S.S.; Xu, C.; Wen, R.; Kacmaz, G. Mathematical Learning and Cognition in Early Childhood; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 223–248. 41. Lynch, J.; Redpath, T. ‘Smart’ Technologies in Early Years Literacy Education: A Meta-Narrative of Paradigmatic Tensions in IPad Use in an Australian Preparatory Classroom. J. Early Child. Lit. 2014, 14, 147–174. [CrossRef] 42. Shuler, C. ILearn II: An Addendum An Analysis of the Games Category of Apple’s App Store; The Joan Ganz Cooney Center: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Available online: https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/ilearn-ii-an-analysis-of-the-education- category-on-apples-app-store/ (accessed on 3 March 2021). 43. Papadakis, S. Tools for Evaluating Educational Apps for Young Children: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347895529_Tools_for_evaluating_educational_ apps_for_young_children_a_systematic_review_of_the_literature (accessed on 3 March 2021). 44. Papadakis, S.; Zaranis, N.; Kalogiannakis, M. Parental Involvement and Attitudes towards Young Greek Children’s Mobile Usage. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2019, 22, 100144. [CrossRef] 45. Knowland, V.; Formby, S. The Use of Technology to Support Literacy in the Early Years in 2015. 2016. Available online: https://cdn.literacytrust.org.uk/media/documents/2016_06_16_free_research_-_technology_use_to_support_emergent_ literacy_2015_6ts4w68.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 46. O’Connor, J.; Fotakopoulou, O. A Threat to Childhood Innocence or the Future of Learning? Parents’ Perspectives on the Use of Touch-Screen Technology by 0–3 Year-Olds in the UK. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 2016, 17, 235–247. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 16 of 17 47. Palaiologou, I. Children under Five and Digital Technologies: Implications for Early Years Pedagogy. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2016, 24, 5–24. [CrossRef] 48. Dighe, S.; Seiden, J. Understanding Parental Engagement in Early Childhood Education in Ethiopia: Perceptions, Practices, and Challenges. Int. J. Early Child. 2020, 52, 37–54. [CrossRef] 49. Toran, M.; Ulusoy, Z.; Aydın, B.; Deveci, T.; Akbulut, A. Evaluation of Mothers’ Views Regarding Children’s Use of Digital Game. Kastamonu Egitim ˘ Derg. 2016, 24, 2263–2278. 50. Broekman, F.L.; Piotrowski, J.T.; Beentjes, H.W.J.; Valkenburg, P.M. App Features That Fulﬁll Parents’ Needs in Apps for Children. Mob. Media Commun. 2018, 6, 367–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Evaluating a course for teaching introductory programming with Scratch to pre-service kindergarten teachers. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2019, 11, 231–246. [CrossRef] 52. He, M.; Irwin, J.D.; Sangster Bouck, L.M.; Tucker, P.; Pollett, G.L. Screen-Viewing Behaviors among Preschoolers. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 29, 120–125. [CrossRef] 53. Nikken, P.; Jansz, J. Developing Scales to Measure Parental Mediation of Young Children’s Internet Use. Learn. Media Technol. 2014, 39, 250–266. [CrossRef] 54. Mcclure, E.R.; Guernsey, L.; Clements, D.H.; Bales, S.N.; Nichols, J.; Michael, N.K.-T.; Levine, H. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood; Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org (accessed on 3 March 2021). 55. Dias, P.; Brito, R.; Ribbens, W.; Daniela, L.; Rubene, Z.; Dreier, M.; Gemo, M.; Di Gioia, R.; Chaudron, S. The Role of Parents in the Engagement of Young Children with Digital Technologies: Exploring Tensions between Rights of Access and Protection, from ‘Gatekeepers’ to ‘Scaffolders’. Glob. Stud. Child. 2016, 6, 414–427. [CrossRef] 56. Plowman, L. Researching Young Children’s Everyday Uses of Technology in the Family Home. Interact. Comput. 2015, 27, 36–46. [CrossRef] 57. Lauricella, A.R.; Wartella, E.; Rideout, V.J. Young Children’s Screen Time: The Complex Role of Parent and Child Factors. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 36, 11–17. [CrossRef] 58. Ozturk, G.; Ohi, S. Understanding Young Children’s Attitudes towards Reading in Relation to Their Digital Literacy Activities at Home. J. Early Child. Res. 2018, 16, 393–406. [CrossRef] 59. McCloskey, M.; Johnson, S.L.; Benz, C.; Thompson, D.A.; Chamberlin, B.; Clark, L.; Bellows, L.L. Parent Perceptions of Mobile Device Use Among Preschool-Aged Children in Rural Head Start Centers. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 83–89.e1. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 285–305. 61. Goh, W.W.L.; Bay, S.; Chen, V.H.H. Young School Children’s Use of Digital Devices and Parental Rules. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32, 787–795. [CrossRef] 62. Chaudron, S.; Di Gioia, R.; Gemo, M. Young Children (0–8) and Digital Technology, a Qualitative Study Across Europe. EUR 29070. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159629895.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). [CrossRef] 63. Common Sense Media. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013. 2013. Available online: https://www. commonsensemedia.org/zero-to-eight-2013-infographic (accessed on 3 March 2021). 64. Vittrup, B.; Snider, S.; Rose, K.K.; Rippy, J. Parental Perceptions of the Role of Media and Technology in Their Young Children’s Lives. J. Early Child. Res. 2016, 14, 43–54. [CrossRef] 65. Colliver, Y. Mothers’ Perspectives on Learning through Play in the Home. Australas. J. Early Child. 2016, 41, 4–12. [CrossRef] 66. Kostyrka-Allchorne, K.; Cooper, N.R.; Simpson, A. The Relationship between Television Exposure and Children’s Cognition and Behaviour: A Systematic Review. Developmental Review; Mosby Inc.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2017; pp. 19–58. 67. McCloskey, M.L.; Thompson, D.A.; Chamberlin, B.; Clark, L.; Johnson, S.L.; Bellows, L.L. Mobile Device Use among Rural, Low-Income Families and the Feasibility of an App to Encourage Preschoolers’ Physical Activity: Qualitative Study. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2018, 1, e10858. [CrossRef] 68. Nathanson, A.I. How Parents Manage Young Children’s Mobile Media Use. In National Symposium on Family Issues; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 9, pp. 3–22. 69. Eutsler, L. Parents’ Mobile Technology Adoption Inﬂuences on Elementary Children’s Use. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 29–42. [CrossRef] 70. Meulman, J.J.; Van der Kooij, A.J.; Heiser, W.J. Principal Components Analysis with Nonlinear Optimal Scaling Transformations for Ordinal and Nominal Data. In The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; Sage Publications: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 49–72. 71. Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 2009, 16, 397–438. [CrossRef] 72. McCutcheon, A. Latent Class Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 1987. 73. Magidson, J.; Vermunt, J.K. Latent Class Models. In The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; Sage: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 175–198. 74. Van Schaik, J.E.; Slim, T.; Franse, R.K.; Raijmakers, M.E.J. Hands-On Exploration of Cubes’ Floating and Sinking Beneﬁts Children’s Subsequent Buoyancy Predictions. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1665. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 17 of 17 75. Stamovlasis, D.; Vaiopoulou, J.; Papageorgiou, G. A Comparative Evaluation of Dissimilarity-Based and Model-Based Clustering in Science Education Research: The Case of Children’s Mental Models of the Earth. Int. J. Data Anal. Tech. Strateg. 2020, 12, 247–261. [CrossRef] 76. Straatemeier, M.; van der Maas, H.L.J.; Jansen, B.R.J. Children’s Knowledge of the Earth: A New Methodological and Statistical Approach. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2008, 100, 276–296. [CrossRef] 77. Vaiopoulou, J.; Papageorgiou, G. Primary Students’ Conceptions of the Earth: Re-Examining a Fundamental Research Hypothesis on Mental Models. Presch. Prim. Educ. 2018, 6, 23–34. [CrossRef] 78. Bakk, Z.; Tekle, F.B.; Vermunt, J.K. Estimating the Association between Latent Class Membership and External Variables Using Bias-Adjusted Three-Step Approaches. Sociol. Methodol. 2013, 43, 272–311. [CrossRef] 79. Vermunt, J.K. Latent Class Modeling with Covariates: Two Improved Three-Step Approaches. Polit. Anal. 2010, 18, 450–469. [CrossRef] 80. Stamovlasis, D.; Papageorgiou, G.; Tsitsipis, G.; Tsikalas, T.; Vaiopoulou, J. Illustration of Step-Wise Latent Class Modeling With Covariates and Taxometric Analysis in Research Probing Children’s Mental Models in Learning Sciences. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 532. [CrossRef] 81. Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Zosh, J.M.; Golinkoff, R.M.; Gray, J.H.; Robb, M.B.; Kaufman, J. Putting Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest Suppl. 2015, 16, 3–34. [CrossRef] 82. Radesky, J.S.; Schumacher, J.; Zuckerman, B. Mobile and Interactive Media Use by Young Children: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Pediatrics 2015, 135, 1–3. [CrossRef] 83. Strouse, G.A.; Troseth, G.L. Supporting Toddlers’ Transfer of Word Learning from Video. Cogn. Dev. 2014, 30, 47–64. [CrossRef] 84. Kucirkova, N.; Littleton, K. The Digital Reading Habits of Children: A National Survey of Parents’ Perceptions of and Practices in Relation to Children’s Reading for Pleasure with Print and Digital Books. Book Trust. Available online: http://www.booktrust. org.uk/news-andblogs/news/1371 (accessed on 3 March 2021). 85. Sergi, K.; Gatewood, R.; Elder, A.; Xu, J. Parental Perspectives on Children’s Use of Portable Digital Devices. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 1148–1161. [CrossRef] 86. Sundar, S.S.; Limperos, A.M. Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratiﬁcations for New Media. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2013, 57, 504–525. [CrossRef] 87. US Department of Education. Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update; 2017. Available online: https://tech.ed.gov/ﬁles/2017/01/NETP17.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 88. Cingel, D.P.; Krcmar, M. Predicting Media Use in Very Young Children: The Role of Demographics and Parent Attitudes. Commun. Stud. 2013, 64, 374–394. [CrossRef] 89. Dore, R.A.; Shirilla, M.; Hopkins, E.; Collins, M.; Scott, M.; Schatz, J.; Lawson-Adams, J.; Valladares, T.; Foster, L.; Puttre, H.; et al. Education in the App Store: Using a Mobile Game to Support US Preschoolers’ Vocabulary Learning. J. Child. Media 2019, 13, 452–471. [CrossRef] 90. Stamovlasis, D.; Vaiopoulou, J. The Role of Dysfunctional Myths in a Decision-Making Process under Bounded Rationality: A Complex Dynamical Systems Perspective. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 2017, 3, 267–288. 91. Simon, H.A. Models of Bounded Rationality; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982; Volume 2. 92. Papadakis, S.; Vaiopoulou, J.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; Kalogiannakis, M. Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Robotics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Proﬁles. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 204. [CrossRef] 93. Papadakis St Vaiopoulou, J.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Vassilakis, K. Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021), Online Streaming, 23–25 April 2021; Volume 2, pp. 55–63. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Behavioral Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/parents-perceptions-of-educational-apps-use-for-kindergarten-children-29y91UeSpx

Loading next page...

References (99)

Katarzyna Kostyrka-Allchorne, N. Cooper, Andrew Simpson (2017)
The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review
Developmental Review, 44
Eric Horvitz (2009)
Association for Computing Machinery
Stamatios Papadakis, Julie Vaiopoulou, Eirini Sifaki, D. Stamovlasis, M. Kalogiannakis (2021)
Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Robotics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Profiles
Education Sciences, 11
(2015)
The Use of Technology to Support Literacy in the Early Years
Zsuzsa Bakk, F. Tekle, J. Vermunt (2013)
Estimating the Association between Latent Class Membership and External Variables Using Bias-adjusted Three-step Approaches
Sociological Methodology, 43
Serife Sevinc, C. Brady (2019)
Mathematical Learning and Cognition in Early Childhood
I. Palaiologou (2016)
Children under five and digital technologies: implications for early years pedagogy†
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24
Hilda Kabali, M. Irigoyen, Rosemary Nunez-Davis, Jennifer Budacki, Sweta Mohanty, Kristin Leister, Robert Bonner (2015)
Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children
Pediatrics, 136
Heping Xie, Ji Peng, Mengyuan Qin, Xuzhe Huang, Fei Tian, Zongkui Zhou (2018)
Can Touchscreen Devices be Used to Facilitate Young Children's Learning? A Meta-Analysis of Touchscreen Learning Effect
Frontiers in Psychology, 9
Αγγελική Χωρίκη (2016)
Latent Class Analysis
An Addendum An Analysis of the Games Category of Apple's App Store
W. Goh, Susanne Bay, V. Chen (2015)
Young school children's use of digital devices and parental rules
Telematics Informatics, 32
Stamatios Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, Nicholas Zaranis (2021)
Teaching mathematics with mobile devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education (RME) approach in kindergarten
Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research
J. Marsh, L. Plowman, D. Yamada-Rice, J. Bishop, J. Lahmar, F. Scott, A. Davenport, S. Davis, K. French, M. Piras, S. Thornhill, P. Robinson, P. Winter (2015)
Exploring Play and Creativity in Pre-schooler's use of apps: Final Project Report
Morgan McCloskey, Susan Johnson, Cris Benz, Darcy Thompson, B. Chamberlin, L. Clark, L. Bellows (2018)
Parent Perceptions of Mobile Device Use Among Preschool‐Aged Children in Rural Head Start Centers
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50
S. Kewalramani, I. Palaiologou, Lorna Arnott, Maria Dardanou (2020)
The integration of the internet of toys in early childhood education: a platform for multi-layered interactions
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28
G. Troseth, Colleen Russo, Gabrielle Strouse (2016)
What’s next for research on young children’s interactive media?
Journal of Children and Media, 10
Shayl Griffith, David Arnold (2018)
Home learning in the new mobile age: parent–child interactions during joint play with educational apps in the US
Journal of Children and Media, 13
J. O’Connor, Olga Fotakopoulou (2016)
A threat to childhood innocence or the future of learning? Parents’ perspectives on the use of touch-screen technology by 0–3 year-olds in the UK
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17
S. Fletcher‐Watson, Alexandra Petrou, Juliet Scott-Barrett, P. Dicks, C. Graham, A. O'hare, H. Pain, H. McConachie (2015)
A trial of an iPadTM intervention targeting social communication skills in children with autism
(2017)
Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education : 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update
Yeshe Colliver (2016)
Mothers' Perspectives on learning through Play in the Home
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41
Stamatios Papadakis (2020)
Tools for evaluating educational apps for young children: a systematic review of the literature
Interact. Technol. Smart Educ., 18
Lucrezia Lanna (2020)
Emotions, private speech, involvement and other aspects of young children's interactions with educational apps
Comput. Hum. Behav., 111
(2016)
Evaluation of Mothers’ Views Regarding Children’s Use of Digital Game
The Digital Reading Habits of Children : A National Survey of Parents ’ Perceptions of and Practices in Relation to Children ’ s Reading for Pleasure with Print and Digital Books
P. Misir (2019)
A Systematic Review of the Literature
HIV/AIDS and Adolescents
(2020)
Mobile Device Sampling: An Unobtrusive, Objective Measure of Child Smartphone and Tablet Use
Chen Huang, Yang Liu, Ningruo Wang (2001)
Final Project Report
D. Kaplan (2004)
The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences
Julianne Lynch, Terri Redpath (2014)
‘Smart’ technologies in early years literacy education: A meta-narrative of paradigmatic tensions in iPad use in an Australian preparatory classroom
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14
M. He, J. Irwin, L. Bouck, P. Tucker, G. Pollett (2005)
Screen-viewing behaviors among preschoolers parents' perceptions.
American journal of preventive medicine, 29 2
Nicola Yelland (2018)
A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal learning with tablets
Br. J. Educ. Technol., 49
Satlaj Dighe, J. Seiden (2020)
Understanding Parental Engagement in Early Childhood Education in Ethiopia: Perceptions, Practices, and Challenges
International Journal of Early Childhood, 52
L. Outhwaite, Marc Faulder, A. Gulliford, N. Pitchford (2018)
Raising Early Achievement in Math With Interactive Apps: A Randomized Control Trial
Journal of Educational Psychology, 111
(2017)
The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight; Common Sense Media
Julie Vaiopoulou, George Papageorgiou (2018)
Primary students’ conceptions of the Earth: Re-examining a fundamental research hypothesis on mental models
, 6
(2017)
New Perspectives for Theory Development in Science Education: Rethinking Mental Models of Force in Primary School
Stamatios Papadakis, Julie Vaiopoulou, Eirini Sifaki, D. Stamovlasis, M. Kalogiannakis, K. Vassilakis (2021)
Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice
P. Nikken (2011)
PARENTAL MEDIATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN ’ S INTERNET USE
L. Plowman (2015)
Researching Young Children's Everyday Uses of Technology in the Family Home
Interact. Comput., 27
S. Sundar, Anthony Limperos (2013)
Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57
T. Asparouhov, B. Muthén (2009)
Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16
(2020)
Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education
Advances in Early Childhood and K-12 Education
David Hill, N. Ameenuddin, Yolanda Chassiakos, Corinn Cross, Jenny Radesky, Jeffrey Hutchinson, Rhea Boyd, R. Mendelson, M. Moreno, Justin Smith, W. Swanson (2016)
Media and Young Minds
Pediatrics, 138
S. Zilberstein (1995)
Models of Bounded Rationality
L. Levine, B. Waite, L. Bowman, Kyla Kachinsky (2019)
Mobile media use by infants and toddlers
Comput. Hum. Behav., 94
Gabrielle Strouse, G. Troseth (2014)
Supporting toddlers’ transfer of word learning from video
Cognitive Development, 30
G. Ozturk, Sarah Ohi (2018)
Understanding young children’s attitudes towards reading in relation to their digital literacy activities at home
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16
Jeroen Vermunt (2010)
Latent Class Modeling with Covariates: Two Improved Three-Step Approaches
Political Analysis, 18
Melissa Callaghan, Stephanie Reich (2018)
Are educational preschool apps designed to teach? An analysis of the app market
Learning, Media and Technology, 43
L. Eutsler (2018)
Parents’ mobile technology adoption influences on elementary children’s use
, 35
Stamatios Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis (2017)
Mobile educational applications for children: what educators and parents need to know
Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organisation, 11
(2017)
Mobile devices in early learning: Evaluating the use of portable devices to support young children’s learning
Brigitte Vittrup, Sharla Snider, K. Rose, J. Rippy (2016)
Parental perceptions of the role of media and technology in their young children’s lives
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14
Katerina Sergi, Ronald Gatewood, Anastasia Elder, Jianzhong Xu (2017)
Parental perspectives on children’s use of portable digital devices
Behaviour & Information Technology, 36
Talia Berkowitz, M. Schaeffer, Erin Maloney, Lori Peterson, Courtney Gregor, S. Levine, Sian Beilock (2015)
Math at home adds up to achievement in school
, 350
F. Broekman, J. Piotrowski, H. Beentjes, P. Valkenburg (2016)
A parental perspective on apps for young children
Comput. Hum. Behav., 63
Alexis Lauricella, E. Wartella, V. Rideout (2015)
Young children's screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36
(2017)
Mobile Educational Applications for Children: What Educators and Parents Need to Know
Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ., 11
(2021)
Children’s Media Use in America 2013
C. Christensen, Cindy Hoisington, P. Vahey, Naomi Hupert, Shelley Pasnik (2019)
PBS Kids Play & Learn Science. Evaluation Report.
D. Stamovlasis, George Papageorgiou, Georgios Tsitsipis, Themistoklis Tsikalas, Julie Vaiopoulou (2018)
Illustration of Step-Wise Latent Class Modeling With Covariates and Taxometric Analysis in Research Probing Children's Mental Models in Learning Sciences
Frontiers in Psychology, 9
Rita Brito, Patrícia Dias (2020)
"Which apps are good for my children?": How the parents of young children select apps
Int. J. Child Comput. Interact., 26
(2021)
2017 National Education Technology Plan Update; 2017
K. Hirsh-Pasek, Jennifer Zosh, R. Golinkoff, James Gray, Michael Robb, Jordy Kaufman (2015)
Putting Education in “Educational” Apps
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16
M. Kalogiannakis, Stamatios Papadakis, Alkinoos-Ioannis Zourmpakis (2021)
Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
Education Sciences, 11
Amy Nathanson (2018)
How Parents Manage Young Children’s Mobile Media Use
Morgan McCloskey, Darcy Thompson, B. Chamberlin, L. Clark, Susan Johnson, L. Bellows (2018)
Mobile Device Use Among Rural, Low-Income Families and the Feasibility of an App to Encourage Preschoolers’ Physical Activity: Qualitative Study
JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 1
E. Hamel, V. Rideout (2006)
Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, and Their Parents, The
F. Broekman, J. Piotrowski, H. Beentjes, P. Valkenburg (2018)
App features that fulfill parents’ needs in apps for children
Mobile Media & Communication, 6
Guy Merchant (2015)
Keep taking the tablets: iPads, story apps and early literacy
The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38
J. Meulman, A. Kooij, W. Heiser (2005)
Principal Components Analysis With Nonlinear Optimal Scaling Transformations for Ordinal and Nominal Data
(2014)
Developing Scales to Measure Parental Mediation of Young Children’s Internet Use. Learn
Media Technol., 39
(2013)
Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology
Highfield, KiTouch and iLearn: An examination of ‘educational’ Apps
Proceedings of the Early Education and Technology for Children Conference
Drew Cingel, M. Krcmar (2013)
Predicting Media Use in Very Young Children: The Role of Demographics and Parent Attitudes
Communication Studies, 64
J. Vermunt (2004)
Latent Class Models
Psycho-oncology
(2012)
KiTouch and iLearn: An examination of ‘educational
N. Kucirkova, R. Flewitt (2020)
Understanding parents’ conflicting beliefs about children’s digital book reading
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 22
Yeshe Colliver, M. Hatzigianni, Ben Davies (2020)
Why can’t I find quality apps for my child? A model to understand all stakeholders’ perspectives on quality learning through digital play
Early Child Development and Care, 190
Patrícia Dias, Rita Brito, Wannes Ribbens, L. Daniela, Z. Rubene, M. Dreier, M. Gemo, Rosanna Gioia, Stéphane Chaudron (2016)
The role of parents in the engagement of young children with digital technologies: Exploring tensions between rights of access and protection, from ‘Gatekeepers’ to ‘Scaffolders’
Global Studies of Childhood, 6
M. Straatemeier, H.L.J. Maas, Brenda Jansen (2008)
Children's knowledge of the earth: a new methodological and statistical approach.
Journal of experimental child psychology, 100 4
N. Kucirkova (2018)
A taxonomy and research framework for personalization in children’s literacy apps
Educational Media International, 55
D. Stamovlasis, Julie Vaiopoulou (2017)
The Role of Dysfunctional Myths in a Decision-Making Process under Bounded Rationality: A Complex Dynamical Systems Perspective.
Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences, 21 3
D. Stamovlasis, Julie Vaiopoulou, George Papageorgiou (2020)
A comparative evaluation of dissimilarity-based and model-based clustering in science education research: the case of children's mental models of the Earth
Int. J. Data Anal. Tech. Strateg., 12
Stamatios Papadakis, Nikolas Zaranis, M. Kalogiannakis (2019)
Parental involvement and attitudes towards young Greek children's mobile usage
Int. J. Child Comput. Interact., 22
Jenny Radesky, Jayna Schumacher, B. Zuckerman (2015)
Mobile and Interactive Media Use by Young Children: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown
Pediatrics, 135
(2019)
Evaluating a course for teaching introductory programming with Scratch to pre-service kindergarten teachers
Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., 11
R. Flewitt, D. Messer, N. Kucirkova (2015)
New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15
Stamatios Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis (2019)
Evaluating a course for teaching introductory programming with Scratch to pre-service kindergarten teachers
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning
M. Missen, A. Javed, Hina Asmat, Mariam Nosheen, Mickael Coustaty, N. Salamat, V. Prasath (2019)
Systematic review and usability evaluation of writing mobile apps for children
New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 25
N. Pitchford (2015)
Development of early mathematical skills with a tablet intervention: a randomized control trial in Malawi
Frontiers in Psychology, 6
Chaudron Stephane, Di Rosanna, Gemo Monica (2017)
Young Children (0-8) and Digital Technology - A qualitative study across Europe
Lucrezia Lanna, Mariona Oro (2019)
Touch gesture performed by children under 3 years old when drawing and coloring on a tablet
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 124
Scott McQuiggan, J. McQuiggan, Jennifer Sabourin, Lucy Kosturko (2015)
Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Developers, Educators, and Learners
Rebecca Dore, Marcia Shirilla, Emily Hopkins, Molly Collins, Molly Scott, Jacob Schatz, Jessica Lawson-Adams, Tara Valladares, Lindsey Foster, Hannah Puttre, Tamara Toub, E. Hadley, R. Golinkoff, David Dickinson, K. Hirsh-Pasek (2019)
Education in the app store: using a mobile game to support U.S. preschoolers’ vocabulary learning
Journal of Children and Media, 13
Sujia Gan (2021)
Children reading for pleasure in the digital age: mapping reader engagement
Language and Education, 37
J. Schaik, Tessa Slim, R. Franse, M. Raijmakers (2020)
Hands-On Exploration of Cubes’ Floating and Sinking Benefits Children’s Subsequent Buoyancy Predictions
Frontiers in Psychology, 11

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2076-328X
DOI: 10.3390/bs11060082
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

behavioral sciences Article Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Proﬁles 1 2 , 3 4 Julie Vaiopoulou , Stamatios Papadakis * , Eirini Sifaki , Dimitrios Stamovlasis and Michail Kalogiannakis Department of Education, University of Nicosia, 2417 Nicosia, Cyprus; vaiopoulou.cp@unic.ac.cy Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, University of Crete, 74100 Crete, Greece; mkalogian@uoc.gr Department of Cultural Organisations Management, Hellenic Open University, 26222 Patras, Greece; sifaki.eirini@ac.eap.gr Department of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; stadi@auth.gr * Correspondence: stpapadakis@uoc.gr Abstract: Contemporary mobile technologies offer tablets and smartphones that elicit young chil- dren’s active participation in various educational apps, dramatically transforming playing, learning, and communication. Even the most knowledgeable users face difﬁculties in deciding about the value and appropriateness of the so-called educational apps because of many factors that should be considered. Their importance for children’s attitudes is affected by the perceived positive and Citation: Vaiopoulou, J.; Papadakis, negative aspects, which vary across a multiplicity of criteria. Filling the gap in the relevant literature, S.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; a new instrument, named PEAU-p (Perceptions about Educational Apps Use–parents), was devel- Kalogiannakis, M. Parents’ oped and validated in the present study designed to measure parents’ perception of educational Perceptions of Educational Apps Use apps for kindergarten pupils. Data (N = 435) were collected via online procedures, and the psycho- for Kindergarten Children: metric properties of PEAU-p were studied via exploratory and conﬁrmatory methods. Principal Development and Validation of a Components Analysis extracted six factors, namely Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Worries, and Values, which explained 72.42% of the total variance. Subsequently, by implementing Exploration of Parents’ Proﬁles. Behav. Latent Class Analysis based on the above factors, four Clusters (i.e., parents’ Proﬁles) were extracted Sci. 2021, 11, 82. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/bs11060082 corresponding to their perceptions and attitudes towards the educational apps used for kindergarten pupils. Those were named as ‘mild attitude’, ‘negative attitude’, ‘positive attitude’, and ‘indifferent Academic Editor: Dario Bacchini attitude’. This categorization, besides the statistical support, is fully interpretable, and the proﬁles were associated with certain covariates, such as age, the number of children, knowledge on new Received: 26 April 2021 technologies, or distal outcomes, e.g., the frequency of using apps, the general position towards apps Accepted: 17 May 2021 or their intention to recommend apps use. The ﬁndings are discussed within the current research Published: 27 May 2021 ﬁeld, investigating the inﬂuential role parents play in young children’s media selection and use. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Keywords: educational apps; parent’s perception; PEAU-p; LCA; parents’ proﬁles with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁl- iations. 1. Introduction Since Apple launched iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010, people worldwide have been attracted to and fascinated by touchscreen devices [1,2]. Touchscreen devices provide Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. an intuitive and straightforward method of management. Compared to the customary Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. systems, the interactive screens did not require special motor skills and became easy to use This article is an open access article even for young children [3]. Studies with young children have shown that basic operations, distributed under the terms and such as opening apps, and tracing shapes, or swiping the screen, are efﬁciently utilized [4]. conditions of the Creative Commons These devices also offer the advantage of speed, ease of learning, and ﬂexibility [5]. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The learning advantages of smart mobile devices have been acknowledged by many creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ scholars and researchers [6], and comparisons with the usage of traditional devices showed 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11060082 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 2 of 17 that the new interactive units provide the opportunity for more efﬁcient learning [7–9]. Preschoolers might beneﬁt speciﬁcally in areas such as the development of basic skills (reading, writing, and mathematics), improvement of basic cognitive and emotional skills, support of collaboration, etc. [10–12]. Studies employing experimental designs with control groups provided empirical evidence for the positive impact in math achievement when using apps at home [13,14], when compared to standard classroom practice [15], or even when compared to placebo control, i.e., a non-educational app [16]. Recent reviews on the impact of educational apps (e.g., [17]) have shown beneﬁts not only on mathematics but also on literacy development, science, problem-solving, and self-efﬁcacy. Using apps in a fully interactive learning environment is stimulating for children who might be tired of the typical learning model [18]. When children use them, they may experience fun and joy while simultaneously facing challenging activities, exploring unknown territories, and being creative by producing new texts expressing their ideas and thoughts and connecting them with real-life [19]. Acknowledging this, the American Academy of Pediatrics, when referring to the mobile app technology, endorsed its usage and highlighted that it is essential and necessary for children and parents to be engaged together [20]. It is pertinent to mention at this point that the positive ﬁndings mentioned above are not fully supported in the case of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (e.g., [21]). In many parts of the world, children’s use of media has become part of a “family- based media ecology” ([22], p. 7) since both children and parents participate in everyday home activities implementing touch screen devices [3,17,23]. Over 50% of the educational apps available in the market are offered to preschool pupils, while parents recognize their educational value, approve app usage, and seek to purposefully and meaningfully incorporate touchscreens into simple literacy instruction [24–27]. American research has shown that the number of children below eight years old using mobile media at home became three times larger during 2013–2017, and this increase is anticipated to continue. Comparable estimates were reported in developed countries globally [4,27]. A survey in the USA indicated that 90% of toddlers below two years old have experienced playing with a touchscreen, and 73% of children between ﬁve and eight years old have been using tablets regularly. In a study of low-income families in the United States, it was found that 75% of the children possess and use mobile devices by the age of four, while it was reported by Common Sense Media (2013) that nearly 60% of the parents in the USA installed educational apps for their children [28–30]. 1.1. The Parental Role in Preschooler Educational App Usage Parents and teachers are looking for such resources that offer play, entertainment, and learning; on the other hand, designers try to satisfy those needs and supply the market with interactive content apps for children [31]. Parents of preschoolers acting as ’media gatekeepers’ play a crucial role in children–app interactions because they decide about the digital technology selection, the type, and the frequency of its use. Their permission or conditional consent signiﬁcantly affects the child’s attitude and engagement within the ensuing interaction process. It is acknowledged, given the integrated home technologies, that when parents make appropriate choices and encourage children to be engaged with high-quality apps, they could scaffold children’s cognitive development, are imaginary, and learn via a self-driven inquiry [17,32–35]. Research on parents and app usage at home indicated that it could be beneﬁcial for all family members, offering rich interactive material, endowing parents’ awareness, and promoting their skills to effectively expedite their children’s experiences. Thus, parents are responsible for the choices, and they should be cautious, avoiding those digital products that usually do not promote creativity [36,37]. Even though parents’ involvement in selecting and implementing preschool children apps is crucial, they frequently use them without accurately evaluating their educational quality or their usefulness, an attribute highly dependent on their developmental process and design. Indeed, despite their popularity, some of the products are not suitable for Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 3 of 17 young ages, and, in addition, they do not offer the anticipated prospects for creativity and enjoyment either [34,38,39]. Beyond the advantages of apps mentioned above, even the top products that sup- posedly cover reading and mathematics ability, such as those available in the Apple and Android App Store, enclose a mix of low- and high-quality aspects. Thus, as challenging it may seem, it is the parents’ responsibility to identify the ones that are suitable for use at home and to distinguish them from those that are ill-designed and do not take advantage of all the hardware and software capabilities provided by a smart screen device [40–42]. Even though most parents and caregivers use touchscreen devices for themselves, they may face difﬁculties implementing them with their young children, as often they ignore the appropriate manners to encourage children and the way to attain early learning development at home. This was shown irrespective of the parental views about the digital play of their children. Parents’ knowledge was proved inadequate to support digital game use, and their effects on desired outcomes are rather vague [4,43–49]. However, it was found that parents focus on particular aspects of apps. For example, it is less likely that the parents think about speciﬁc features of educational apps, such as visual and sound effects, than to consider the actual content [50]. The above literature shows that parental perceptions about educational apps are decisive for their use by children because parents determine what types of mobile devices will be in use. 1.2. Studies Examining Parents’ Perceptions about Educational Apps In addition, in the shared experience, parents act as advisors and teachers, affecting their attitudes and facilitating learning outcomes. If parents’ perceptions favor fostering apps, positive habits are established, while critical thinking promotes which types of app content is suitable and worth using [51]. The perceptions and behaviors in question, however, are not uniform. Some perceptions are inclined towards selecting apps with educational and learning values, while some others emphasize the value adhered to fun and entertainment [34,50] or seeing these “screen-viewing activities as a babysitter/coping mechanism and a device to wake up or wind down young children” ([52], p. 124). Parents have predominately exhibited ﬁve needs as far the apps use is concerned, i.e., to attain acquaintance, pass the time, get entertainment, acquire coeducation, and face personalized challenges [34]. These different needs vary among individuals and might determine or are part of distinct parenting styles, which could be inﬂuenced by demographics, the family’s climate, parents’ related knowledge and skills, parents’ general approach to media, and the speciﬁc context question [53]. Moreover, other variables have been sporadically reported related to the issue under investigation, such as the marital status and the parents’ education. The higher the edu- cation level of parents, the lesser the involvement of children at young ages with screens, while the opposite is observed at lower educational levels, where children are strongly encouraged to be engaged with screen media [1,54]. However, the effects of individual characteristics associated with parents’ perceptions of educational app implementation have not been systematically explored. The initial literature review exhibits a volume of ac- cumulated knowledge, which dictates further research focused on parents’ beliefs and their constructive attitudes on app use, as it could predict their behavior in interaction settings with children [44,55–59]. The reported empirical evidence suggests that the implementation of digital media by both parent and child at home is directly inﬂuenced by parental views and perception about digital technology [60]. That is the perceived usefulness and efﬁcacy of apps as entertainment or educational tools to inﬂuence the crucial decisions for the availability and accessibility of these technologies at home [55,61]. Among the inﬂuential factors, several variables related to emotions, worries, and uncertainty present in parents’ decision-making. This leads to an interesting observation that the parental views in ques- tion have expressed as polarized positions, often as strictly positive or negative attitudes towards the implications of the digital technology use for their children’s lives [61–64]. Frequently, these seemingly opposite standpoints coexist, positing interesting questions for Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 4 of 17 further research. Parents acknowledge the potential beneﬁts of mobile devices [10,64–66], but simultaneously, they express some concerns about the possible drawbacks of mobile device use [62,67]. The two opposing attitudes are apparent in everyday discourses. Many parents show enthusiasm for including smart screen technology in the preschool education curricula and acknowledge them as an excellent prospect for preparing young children for their following formal education. On the other hand, other parents emphasize some negative aspects of smart screen technology, and they provide limited opportunities to use it or even prohibit it together [56,62]. Analogously to the past period, research focused on other media, e.g., television, nowadays, educational apps’ experience attracts attention. The research interest has shifted to their implementation and the crucial role of parental involvement [34,68]. The present study investigates this contemporary issue and contributes by presenting an instrument to measure parents’ perceptions of apps and explore their psychometric properties. Moreover, a person-centered approach was implemented, and based on selected individual differences, parents’ proﬁles were revealed describing their attitudes towards apps’ use. Parents’ perceptions of app users have been accessed previously via qualitative interviews or questionnaires (e.g., [32,50,69]) focusing on various aspects. This work proposes a new scale including dimensions that have not been examined so far and provides its psychometric analysis. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Research Questions Probing to understand parents’ perceptions and attitudes towards using educational apps by their children primarily requires a valid instrument and a method for measuring them. Parents’ perceptions of apps that create attitudes towards them are probably varying across a few factors and criteria, or the dimensions of the latent variables under study, which ﬁnally determines their overall position towards educational apps. In this work, ﬁlling a gap in the literature, the new instrument, named PEAU-p (Perceptions about Educational Apps Use—parents), was developed to measure parents’ perceptions of the apps use. Furthermore, it was implemented to explore their constructive attitudes towards them. Based on this initiative and within the premise growing via the abovementioned rich literature, several research questions were formulated: 1. What are the psychometric characteristics of the PEAU-p instrument, including the validity and reliability issues? 2. Based on measured parents’ perceptions on app use: Are there distinct groups/clusters of parents sharing typical proﬁles reﬂecting formative attitudes? 3. Are the ensued cluster memberships/proﬁles associated with other individual differ- ences acting as covariates or distal outcomes? 2.2. Participants and Procedures Participants were 435 parents who completed the PEAU-p questionnaire online. The majority (95.9%) were mothers with ages varying from 21 to 50 years old (median = 35, mean = 36.88, SD = 5.21). The number of children varied from 1 to 4 (mean = 1.68, SD = 1.51). The study was a cross-sectional survey using an electronic sampling process via social media groups. The implemented self-completion questionnaire (PEAU-p) for parents was uploaded on a web-based form via Google Forms, and parents completed it anony- mously. The escorting cover letter provided all relevant information, such as elucidating the purpose of the study, the conﬁdentiality of the process, and the voluntary character of the participation, without ﬁnancial incentives. The protocol was following procedures approved by the Research Ethics Committee from the University of Crete, Greece. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 5 of 17 2.3. Measures The PEAU-p is a new instrument designed for measuring parents’ perceptions of app use. The scale was proposed after extensive preliminary work, including studying the relevant literature, theoretical considerations, and the use of valid questions chosen from IT literature, but adopted and reﬁned for the current. Moreover, the new items generated focused on providing the empirical indices for the dimensions conceived to describe the latent variable under investigation. The initially proposed form of PEAU-p was developed via intensive expert-team work and elaboration process that assured, at least at a theoretical level, validity issues, further explored via statistical methods in the next phase. In PEAU-p, the latent variable under investigation encompasses six dimensions, named: Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values. For the six theoretically conceived dimensions, 27 items were used that remained in the ﬁnal form of PEAU-p after the exploratory and validation procedures implemented on an initial battery of 39 items. Besides the PEAU-p items, the questionnaire included two other types of questions: (1) variables that provide demographic information (e.g., gender, age, educational level, number of children, age of children) and (2) several items, operationalizing as relevant attitudinal or cognitive variables, such as, “What is the level of your knowledge on New Technologies?”, “Do you think that kids spend too much time on screens?”, “How often do you use apps with your children?”, “How old was your kid when you start using educational apps?”, “Does the use of apps cause conﬂicts between you and your children?”, “What is your overall position towards educational apps?” and “How possible is to recom- mend educational apps to other parents?”. The above items (measured on a 7-point Likert scale) were associated as independent or dependent variables with the parents’ attitudinal proﬁles ensued from subsequent analyses. 3. Results 3.1. Exploratory (EFA) and Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) In the EFA procedure, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was applied. Initially, a rescaled transformation (CATPCA procedure; [70]) was applied to the initial ordinal data to make the resulting scale suitable for PCA. Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( = 8045.29, p < 0.0001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index (0.889) indicated adequate variance for factor analysis. The number of factors was decided based on the screen plot and the Kaiser Criterion, eigenvalue greater than 1. Six factors were extracted. In addition, an auxiliary analysis of Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and parallel analysis using Monte Carlo simulation resulted in the same dimensionality. A PCA analysis was conducted using an initial pool of 39 items. The reﬁnement with Varimax rotation and keeping only items with loadings more signiﬁcant than 0.40 resulted in a ﬁnal interpretable structure using 27 items. The six factors explained 72.42% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the corresponding eigenvalues for Usability (US), Enjoyment (EN), Involvement (IN), Learning (LE), Worries (W), and Values (VA), which are 2.46, 3.45, 1.98, 4.76, 4.12, and 2.80, respectively, while the corresponding portions of variance explained were 9.10%, 12.78%, 7.33%, 17.61% 15.25% and 10.36%, respectively (see Table 1). Subsequently, conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the proposed model was applied to the second part of the data using LISREL8 procedures. The proposed 6-factor structure ﬁtted in a CFA model adequately ( /df = 1.23, p = 0.06, CFI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.027, 90% CI of RMSEA = [0.000; 0.040], SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.90; NFI = 0.957 and NNFI = 0.993). The factorial validity of the proposed structure is sufﬁciently supported; however, it might be worthwhile mentioning that applying an ESEM (exploratory structural equation modeling) approach that allows cross-loadings in two items, an even better ﬁt is, expectantly, achieved (e.g., [71]). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 6 of 17 Table 1. Structure Factors of PEAU-p. Results from PCA with Varimax rotation. Factors LE W EN VA US IN F4-Q17. Facilitate new knowledge 0.776 acquisition. F4-Q18. Enhance a child’s language 0.761 development. F4-Q21. Promote creative thinking. 0.751 F4-Q16. Contribute to the cognitive 0.747 development F4-Q19. Facilitate foreign languages 0.740 learning F4-Q20. Offer feedback in case of 0.723 error. F4-Q15. Promote logical thinking. 0.681 F5-Q28. Undermine children 0.890 development F5-Q29. They create health problems. 0.844 F5-Q27. Problems are due to 0.837 radiation. F5-Q30. Reduces quality interaction 0.798 with parents. F5-Q31. Cause introversion in 0.773 children. F2-Q06. They offer pleasant sounds. 0.881 F2-Q05. They enclose pleasant 0.851 images. F2-Q08. They contain fun characters 0.850 for kids. F2-Q07. They entertain the children. 0.727 F7-Q37. They are complemented by 0.890 traditional teaching. F6-Q38. They offer multimedia 0.868 teaching material. F6-Q39. They strengthen the 0.783 motivation for learning. F6-Q36. They create an effective 0.544 learning environment. F6-Q03. They provide instructions 0.775 suitable for children of this age. F1-Q01. They are easy to use by 0.757 children. F1-Q04. Children easily understand 0.721 the content. F1-Q02. Children can use them 0.655 without the guidance of an adult. F3-Q12. They capture the child’s 0.833 attention. F3-Q11. They capture the child’s 0.800 interest. F3-Q14. They create an addiction to 0.580 the child. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of the six factors, the means, the standard devia- tions, and the corresponding reliability coefﬁcients. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 78 to 89, denoting satisfactory internal consistency. These six factors were subsequently used, as input variables, in the LCA procedure. Enjoyment Learning Outcomes Involvement Usability Values Worries Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 7 of 17 Table 2. Correlation matrix of the six factors, Cronbach’s , and a number of items. US EN IN LE W VA Alpha Items Usability 1 0.782 4 Enjoyment 0.478 ** 1 0.898 4 Involvement 0.345 ** 0.308 ** 1 0.768 3 Learning 0.343 ** 0.496 ** 0.103 * 1 0.896 7 Worries 0.028 0.112 * 0.379 ** 0.301 ** 1 0.889 5 Values 0.279 ** 0.406 ** 0.111 * 0.575 ** 0.212 ** 1 0.882 4 Mean 4.57 5.24 5.88 4.32 4.96 4.31 SD 1.08 1.18 1.04 1.11 1.33 1.33 3.2. Latent Class Analysis—Parents’ Proﬁles In the next phase, Latent Class Analysis was carried out to reveal distinct groups/clusters or latent classes of participants sharing common proﬁles. In LCA, the cases/respondents in a latent class are considered homogeneous regarding the model’s parameters that describe the pattern of their responses [72]. The procedure assigns the participants to class/cluster membership based on conditional probabilities characterizing each latent class. The clus- ter/latent class predictions are achieved via the posterior probability of belonging to a class C, given an observed response pattern y, p(c/y), by applying Bayes’ theorem, which also employs the p(y/c), the conditional probability of y given c, and p(c) and p(y), i.e., the probabilities of c and observed pattern y, respectively [73]. Several indexes assess the latent-class model-ﬁt, i.e., the number of parameters, entropy-R2, likelihood ratio statistic (L2), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), degrees of freedom, and bootstrapped p-value. LCA is a powerful method having numerous applications in a wide range of disci- plines and ﬁelds. In educational research, LCA has been proved an effective tool in deriving participants’ proﬁles and answering challenging research questions. Mentioning some indicative investigations would include exploring students’ predictions and explanations of physical phenomena (e.g., [74]), testing contradictory theoretical perspectives, such as the coherence vs. fragmented knowledge hypotheses (e.g., [75–77]). In addition, it should be emphasized that LCA is a psychometric approach and has a series of advantages over the traditional cluster analysis [73]. In the present analysis, the step-wise method was used, which has three steps: (a) the primary latent categorical variable is identiﬁed based on a set of indicators, (b) the participants are assigned to latent classes/proﬁles, and (c) the ensued class membership is associated with covariates or distal outcomes [78,79]. Figure 1 shows the latent variable model with the measurement and the structural parts. In the ﬁrst step of the LCA, the latent classes/proﬁles were identiﬁed using the six factors of PEAU-p (Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values) as input. In the second step, the parents were allocated to latent classes/proﬁles utilizing the modal assignment approach, along with the maximum likelihood (ML) bias correction [78]. A detailed illustrative description of the three-step LCA applied to educational research can be found in Stamovlasis, Papageorgiou, Tsitsipis, Tsikalas, and Vaiopoulou [80]. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 8 of 17 Figure 1. The latent variable model with the measurement and the structural parts. The results of the LCA ﬁrst step are shown in Table 3. The four-cluster solution had the minimum value of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and it was chosen as the best parsimonious model (entropy-R = 0.80, df = 383, classiﬁcation-error = 0.1320, BIC = 5252.87, Npar = 51). Table 3. Latent Class Analysis. LCA. 2 2 LL BIC(LL) Npar L df p-Value Class.Err. Entropy R 1-Cluster 2699.08 5471.04 12 922.07 422 0.00 0.00 1 2-Cluster 2566.25 5284.32 25 656.40 409 0.00 0.0956 0.68 3-Cluster 2514.06 5258.89 38 552.02 396 0.02 0.1461 0.68 4-Cluster 2471.57 5252.87 51 467.05 383 0.25 0.1320 0.80 5-Cluster 2450.55 5289.78 64 425.02 370 0.34 0.1606 0.74 6-Cluster 2439.45 5346.52 77 402.80 357 0.38 0.1643 0.73 Figure 2 presents the ensued proﬁles in terms of conditional probabilities depicted on the vertical axis, while the horizontal axis shows the six dimensions of the PEAU-p scale. Cluster/Proﬁle 1 (31.31%) includes parents with perceived low Usability, Enjoyment, Values and Worries, and medium perceived Involvement and Learning. This was named the Mild Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 2 (29.07%) includes parents with perceived low Usability, Enjoyment, Values, Learning, but with perceived high Involvement and Worries. This was named the Negative Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 3 (20.5%) includes parents with medium Worries and perceived high the other ﬁve dimensions (Usability, Enjoyment, Values, Involvement, and Learning). This was named the Positive Attitude proﬁle. Cluster/Proﬁle 4 (19.13%) includes parents with low all six perceived dimensions. This was named the Indifferent Attitude proﬁle. Table 4 presents a verbal description of the four proﬁles. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 9 of 17 Figure 2. Proﬁles of the four clusters/Proﬁles in terms of the conditional probabilities are depicted on the vertical axis, while the horizontal axis shows the six dimensions of the PEAU-p scale. Table 4. A verbal description of the four Clusters/Proﬁles. Cluster 1/Proﬁle 1 Cluster 2/Proﬁle 2 Cluster 3/Proﬁle 3 Cluster 4/Proﬁle 4 31.31% 29.07% 20.50% 19.13% Usability Low Low High Low Enjoyment Low Low High Low Involvement Medium High High Low Learning Medium Low High Low Worries Low High Medium Low Values Low Low High Low Mild Attitude Negative Attitude Positive Attitude Indifferent Attitude 3.3. Association of the Proﬁles with Other Variables 3.3.1. Effect of Independent Variable on Parents’ Proﬁles In the next step, the cluster/proﬁle membership was associated with covariates; the latter considered independent factors affecting the former. The following variables were examined: Parents’ age, number of children, the age of the 1st child, the age of the 2nd child, parents’ knowledge of new technologies, parents’ level of education, and parents’ perception of time spent by children on screens (Table 5). Parents’ age is associated negatively with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude). Parents who do not appreciate educational apps and perceive high involvement and worry about their children’s use are probably the younger ones (b = 0.075, p < 0.001). This could be explained by the fact that the younger parents have the younger children; thus, they are directly concerned with exhibiting intense worries. Note that the average age was 36.88 (SD = 5.21). This is in line with the ﬁnding that Proﬁle 4, i.e., the ‘Indifferent,’ is associated positively with age (b = 0.06, p < 0.01). The number of children is associated positively with both Proﬁle 2/ Negative Attitude (b = 0.29, p < 0.01) and Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude (b = 0.42, p < 0.001). Given that the number of children is examined as an independent variable, one may reason that the parents with more children appear divided, i.e., there is a segment of those parents who perceive the involvement with apps as high and worry about their children’s use of apps and a segment that highly appreciates apps and worries less. Knowledge of new technologies affects positively Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude and negatively Proﬁle 4/ Indifferent attitude. That is, parents with the higher knowledge of new technologies greatly appreciate apps Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 10 of 17 most probably belong to Proﬁle 3/ Positive Attitude (b = 0.41, p < 0.01) and thus worry less about their use, while parents with the lower knowledge on new technologies most probably belong to the ‘Indifferent’ Proﬁle 4 (b = 0.34, p < 0.01). Finally, parents who perceive that the time spent by children on screens is too much most probably belong to Proﬁle 2/ Negative Attitude (b = 0.50, p < 0.001), including those who do not appreciate educational apps and perceive high involvement and worry about their children’s use of them. In contrast, parents with mild and indifferent proﬁles think oppositely (b = 0.23, p < 0.01 and b = 0.48, p < 0.001, respectively). The level of education does not affect any proﬁle formation. Table 5. Effects of covariates with the ensuing parents’ proﬁles. Proﬁle 1/Mild Proﬁle 2/Negative Proﬁle 3/Positive Proﬁle 4/Indifferent Covariates Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude Parent Age 0.02 0.075 *** 0.01 0.06 ** Number of Children 0.31 0.29 ** 0.42 *** 0.39 Age of the 1st Child 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 Age of the 2nd Child 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.09 Knowledge of New Technologies 0.12 0.05 0.41 ** 0.34 ** Perceived crucial time on Apps 0.23 ** 0.50 *** 0.21 0.48 *** Level of Education 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.17 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. 3.3.2. Association of Proﬁles with Dependent Variables The four clusters/proﬁle memberships were considered independent factors associ- ated with distal outcomes, such as the frequency their children use educational apps. Other outcomes were age children started using apps, the perception of a causal relationship between apps use and parent–children conﬂicts, the overall position on apps use, the possibility that the individual would suggest apps to another parent, and the degree the parent is annoyed by children using apps in public (Table 6). Table 6. Effects of parents’ Proﬁle-memberships on distal outcomes. Proﬁle 1/Mild Proﬁle 2/Negative Proﬁle 3/Positive Proﬁle 4/Indifferent Dependents Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude Frequency of use 0.33 * 0.90 *** 0.81 *** 0.24 Child’s age started 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.01 Cause of conﬂicts 0.59 *** 0.61 *** 0.21 0.23 Overall positive Position 0.43 ** 1.27 *** 1.13 *** 0.29 Possibility of recommendation 0.62 *** 1.39 *** 1.23 *** 0.46 ** Annoyed by children’s use of apps 0.19 0.44 ** 0.15 0.13 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. First, no association with the starting age of children’s app use was found. Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude), a parent with negative attitudes and high worries about the apps use, most probably do not use apps often (b = 0.90, p < 0.0001), while a parent in Proﬁle 3 (Positive Attitude), with a positive attitude and low worries, most probably do (b = 0.81, p < 0.0001). Additionally, parents in Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude), contrary to the other proﬁles, do consider that the apps use causes conﬂicts between parents and children to a higher degree (b = 0.61, p < 0.0001). An overall positive position for apps use is strongly exhibited by Proﬁle 3 (b = 1.13, p < 0.0001) and less by Proﬁle 1 (b = 0.43, p < 0.01), while the Proﬁle 2 exhibits negative overall position (b = 1.27, p < 0.001). Similarly, parents in Proﬁle 3 (Positive Attitude) most probably would recommend apps use to other parents (b = 1.23, p < 0.001), and so would parents with Proﬁle 1 (b = 0.62, p < 0.001), while parents with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude) would not (b = 1.39, p < 0.001). Finally, parents who are annoyed by children’s use of apps in public are those with Proﬁle 2 (Negative Attitude) (b = 0.44, p < 0.001). Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 11 of 17 4. Discussion 4.1. Psychometric Properties of the PEAU-p Focusing on the research questions concerning PEAU-p, it was shown that the pro- posed new instrument, designed to measure parents’ perception of apps used by kinder- garten children, possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The factorial validity demonstrated by CFA meets adequate ﬁt, while the values of Cronbach’s alpha for each factor are by far satisfactory, ensuring high reliability. The six factors structure: Usability, Enjoyment, Involvement, Learning, Worries, and Values, is interpretable, including the dimensions upon which parents can base their mindset and appraise the use of educa- tional apps. The above dimensions are implicitly or explicitly encountered in the relevant literature. Many researchers have highlighted that educational apps should contain a learning goal and be mentally activating, engaging, socially interactive, contain meaningful learning [81,82]. Guided by the evidence-based assumption that parental engagement in technology use is by far inﬂuential [53,83], the present study has provided insights for (a) the properties that parents identify in apps for young children, (b) how parents appraise those features, and (c) how those features of apps are in line with parents’ anticipations and needs when they consider them for use by their children. The PEAU-p is an instrument available to researchers for investigating those relationships and comprises a valuable tool for the continuous contribution to theory building in this ﬁeld. Our work extended previous endeavors by establishing that young children’s parental perceptions regarding digital media use are a multi-dimensional construct [53]. 4.2. Parents’ Proﬁles Regarding Perceptions about Apps Use Having designed a valid and germane apparatus, a methodological choice was made to further explore the latent variables under study by implementing a person-centered approach instead of an alternative variable-centered approach to investigate potentially formative attitudes of parents. In this approach, the basic assumption, from the psychomet- ric theory point of view, is that the observed pattern of responses in a set of questions is due to the existence of latent variables that are categorical in nature. In other words, given a set of criteria or attributes, individuals can be identiﬁed as members of distinct groups, possessing comparable levels of those attributes. This categorization process needs robust statistical tools, such as the LCA implemented in this endeavor, to reveal signiﬁcantly different groups/clusters corresponding to interpretable proﬁles. This part of the analysis answered the second research question and showed four parents’ proﬁles, characterized by different attitudes toward the apps’ use. We found that parents with distinct proﬁles may have opposing perceptions and, thus, they are expected to make different decisions for their children. Literature reports that discovering parents’ beliefs about children’s apps enhances our understanding of parents’ decision-making process in selecting apps for their children [50]. The present classiﬁcation scheme, resulting from LCA, is the ﬁrst one reported in the ﬁeld, which, quantitatively and qualitatively, documented parents’ viewpoints potentially affect children and shape their appropriate screen viewing from early childhood. Determining a typology of parents’ perceptions and farther their beliefs and attitudes on apps, one assesses their set of coherent judgments that could be character- ized along the lines of the current debate on young children’s apps use in home settings. The revealed latent proﬁles can serve as a causal interpretation of the observed parents’ behavior and choices reported in the relevant literature. The results of this research are in line with the ﬁndings of other studies, where it has been shown that parents have speciﬁc mindsets and needs to satisfy when selecting apps for their children [4,34,44,46,65,84,85]. They desire apps fostering independent entertainment [86], encouraging coeducation be- tween parents and children, and providing personalized and challenging content to their child [44]. When it comes to young children, some issues arise regarding the suitability and the potential proﬁts of using these technologies with educational apps. The appropriate technology matching with children’s developmental needs can help their cognitive growth and learning outcomes, especially when families control the issue Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 12 of 17 and actively play their supportive role. It presupposes, of course, sensibly designed and attentively applied technology for gaining the beneﬁts of accelerating, amplifying, and expanding the anticipated impact [87]. Parents’ attitudes and actions regarding apps use are active and decisive, forbidding or allowing and encouraging children to use apps in their everyday lives. Parents often pursue the apps that primarily entertain and encourage their children to be autonomous, considering that they would favorably respond to this involvement. It was reported that participants with at least one child aged between 3 to 7 years old required apps developmentally compatible with the child’s age, his/her actual needs with exceptional design and personalized content [34]. 4.3. Individual Differences on Parents’ Proﬁles Parents’ perceptions and attitudes on app use by children are affected by a multiplicity of individual differences. For instance, research reports have indicated that parent edu- cation and socioeconomic status (SES) are related to app consumption habits. Children who watch more television and play more video games most likely belong to families with lower SES and parents with low education levels. These differences and the digital gap are being ameliorated, given that these technologies with promising learning beneﬁts are globally increased [39,88,89]. 4.4. Contribution to the Research Field The present report adds to our knowledge on those potentially inﬂuential factors by revealing some other individual differences. This is related to the third research question concerning the association of the ensued parents’ proﬁles with other variables, acting as covariates or distal outcomes. The latent classes in question, as dependent variables, are correlated to parents’ age, number of children, and parents’ knowledge level on new technologies. Moreover, the latent proﬁles as independent variables signiﬁcantly affect the frequency of apps use, perceptions of conﬂicts between parent-child, the overall position on apps use, the possibility of recommending apps use to other parents, and the degree of annoyance children’s use of apps. Of course, in the above association, the arrow of causality is deﬁned by the researcher, and, besides the worth of knowing them for theoretical and practical purposes, they are critical because they add to validity considerations, as far as the psychometric measurement and the classiﬁcation procedure, is concerned, since all of them are meaningful, establishing reasonable and interpretable relationships. To this end, the present work contributes to the relevant empirical research literature with an increasing interest that comprises a growing area of investigations. 4.5. Limitations and Future Directions The present study has some limitations that constrain the implications of the ﬁndings. The study uses cross-sectional data, which did not evaluate whether the relations demon- strated here are sustained over time. Future research could investigate the stability of these relations during the elementary school years through longitudinal studies. In addition, the ﬁndings cannot be generalized to a speciﬁc population since the sampling process did not cover detailed geographic areas and demographic characteristics. Another limitation might concern the data collection procedure, which was conducted via an online questionnaire. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the vast majority were mothers, which prevented exploring gender differences among parents. Finally, the study was correlational and did not allow ﬁrm causal inferences. Based on the current work and other studies in the literature, one might design interventions aimed explicitly at selected aspects of the models presented here, e.g., interventions on parental stereotypes or parents’ beliefs and attitudes about apps. The proposed tool to measure parental perceptions and the methodology implemented can serve as valuable assets in subsequent inquiries probing the respective perception of parents and the differences between them regarding varying attitudes and behaviors as far the use of educational apps. In the future, it would be interesting to investigate the Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 13 of 17 extent to which the parenting styles could be associated with variations in individual needs. For instance, if authoritative or permissive parenting style impacts parents’ perceptions and attitudes and how they affect young children on the issues addressed in the paper. The ensued parental proﬁles may be studied with other individual differences, while interventions or longitudinal studies, probing mechanisms of change and overcoming resistance to using educational apps, could be designed and carried out in the light of the present ﬁndings. 5. Conclusions The present endeavor adds to the research area on technology and childhood by investigating parental perceptions and attitudes on early childhood educational apps. The contribution of this work is primarily on theory building since it explored, via the designed and validated instrument, PEAU-p, the latent variables determining the mediating role of parents, and provided interpretation of their actions and practices. Providing the optimal learning environment for their children is a challenge for many families. While it is acknowledged that educational apps can help children build academic competence, such as literacy, numeracy, and social skills, and, in the end, to become more prepared for school education, parents do not always conform with this evidence-based postulate. There are counterviews and opposing opinions of parents, preventing the appropriate choices and practices from being fostered. Given the plethora of factors, problems arise from their inability to distinguish the educational value of an app. Moreover, issues originate from personal worries and doubts. LCA attained a classi- ﬁcation of those characteristics, and since it is a model-based method, the ensued latent classes represent speciﬁc trends that could be generalized in the population. According to the present ﬁndings, only 20.5% of the participants were positively aligned with the apps’ implementation (Cluster/Proﬁle 3). A total of 19.13% of the sample is indifferent and apathetic towards educational apps (Cluster/Proﬁle4). In addition, 31.31% of the sample shows a mild (positive) attitude (Cluster/Proﬁle 1), while 29.07% of the sample is totally against (negative attitude proﬁle) to educational apps (Cluster/Proﬁle 2). Excluding indifferent Proﬁle 4, which would require a differentiated approach to be understood, Proﬁles 2 and 4 attract the primary attention. In Proﬁle 2 (negative attitude), parents express doubts about possible harm due to hardware technology and high involvement with psychological implications. On the other hand, Proﬁle 1, with mild attitudes, could be viewed as representing an intermediate or transition state between Proﬁles 2 and 3. An emergent question and potential hypothesis divide those tendencies, and how to shift between stages could be attained. The strength of the various perceptions demarcates the differences between proﬁles set by the classiﬁcation method. At this point, it is pertinent to highlight that those perceptions, most likely, are formed by or due to misinformation, lack of knowledge, and dysfunctional beliefs that operate under bounded rationality [90]. These crucial determinants of the underlying mindsets regarding potential changes and shifts in attitudes and behavioral patterns could be approached and explained by the bounded rationality theory [91]. The theoretical and practical implications derived from the ﬁndings of this study contribute to the relevant research ﬁeld by providing early childhood researchers with both an enriched theoretical premise to interpret empirical data and a valid instrument to capture parents’ perceptions, which probably change over time [92,93]. Additionally, educational organizations might use the current ﬁndings to develop programs to inform parents about educational apps by preschool children, emphasizing the speciﬁc issues raised by each proﬁle. This is especially important, as screen time and technological devices have increased due to the demands of the current period of the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing new behaviors and habits for young children. Finally, parents, being aware that using developmentally appropriate technology at home promotes young children’s early development and learning, should re-examine their decisions and choices based Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 14 of 17 on ﬁrm understanding and knowledge about new technologies embedded formally or informally in contemporary education. Author Contributions: All authors share equal contributions for all parts and steps of the study. The authors contributed to the article and have read and approved the ﬁnal version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research did not receive any speciﬁc grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-proﬁt sectors. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Preschool Education of the University of Crete, Greece (14/29.01.2021). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors reported no potential conﬂict of interest. Ethics Statement: The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Crete Ethics and Deontology committee. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. References 1. Levine, L.E.; Waite, B.M.; Bowman, L.L.; Kachinsky, K. Mobile Media Use by Infants and Toddlers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 94, 92–99. [CrossRef] 2. Xie, H.; Peng, J.; Qin, M.; Huang, X.; Tian, F.; Zhou, Z. Can Touchscreen Devices Be Used to Facilitate Young Children’s Learning? A Meta-Analysis of Touchscreen Learning Effect. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2580. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Merchant, G. Keep Taking the Tablets: IPads, Story Apps and Early Literacy. Aust. J. Lang. Lit. 2015, 38, 3–11. 4. Marsh, J.; Plowman, L.; Yamada-Rice, D.; Bishop, J.C.; Lahmar, J.; Scott, F.; Davenport, A.; Davis, S.; French, K.; Piras, M. Exploring Play and Creativity in Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps: Final Project Report. 2015. Available online: www.techandplay.org (accessed on 3 March 2021). 5. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Mobile Educational Applications for Children: What Educators and Parents Need to Know. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2017, 11, 256–277. [CrossRef] 6. Crescenzi-Lanna, L. Emotions, Private Speech, Involvement and Other Aspects of Young Children’s Interactions with Educational Apps. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 111, 106430. [CrossRef] 7. Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.-I. Gamiﬁcation in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 22. [CrossRef] 8. Kucirkova, N.; Cremin, T. Children Reading for Pleasure in the Digital Age: Mapping Reader Engagement; SAGE Publications: California, CA, USA, 2020. 9. Crescenzi Lanna, L.; Grané Oro, M. Touch Gesture Performed by Children under 3 Years Old When Drawing and Coloring on a Tablet. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 124, 1–12. [CrossRef] 10. Colliver, Y.; Hatzigianni, M.; Davies, B. Why Can’t I Find Quality Apps for My Child? A Model to Understand All Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Quality Learning through Digital Play. Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 190, 2612–2626. [CrossRef] 11. McQuiggan, S.; McQuiggan, J.; Sabourin, J.; Kosturko, L. Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Developers, Educators, and Learners; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. 12. Zigh, E.; Elhoucine, A.; Mallek, A.; Kadiri, M.; Belkacem, K.; Ensari, T. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Networking, Information Systems & Security; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5. 13. Berkowitz, T.; Schaeffer, M.W.; Maloney, E.A.; Peterson, L.; Gregor, C.; Levine, S.C.; Beilock, S.L. Math at Home Adds up to Achievement in School. Science 2015, 350, 196–198. [CrossRef] 14. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Zaranis, N. Teaching Mathematics with Mobile Devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education (RME) Approach in Kindergarten. Adv. Mob. Learn. Educ. Res. 2021, 2021, 5–18. [CrossRef] 15. Outhwaite, L.A.; Faulder, M.; Gulliford, A.; Pitchford, N.J. Raising Early Achievement in Math with Interactive Apps: A Randomized Control Trial. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 111, 284–298. [CrossRef] 16. Pitchford, N.J. Development of Early Mathematical Skills with a Tablet Intervention: A Randomized Control Trial in Malawi. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 485. [CrossRef] 17. Grifﬁth, S.F.; Arnold, D.H. Home Learning in the New Mobile Age: Parent–Child Interactions during Joint Play with Educational Apps in the US. J. Child. Media 2019, 13, 1–19. [CrossRef] 18. Missen, M.M.S.; Javed, A.; Asmat, H.; Nosheen, M.; Coustaty, M.; Salamat, N.; Prasath, V.B.S. Systematic Review and Usability Evaluation of Writing Mobile Apps for Children. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2019, 25, 137–160. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 15 of 17 19. Vaiopoulou, J.; Stamovlasis, D.; Papageorgiou, G. New Perspectives for Theory Development in Science Education: Rethinking Mental Models of Force in Primary School. Prog. Educ. 2017, 47, 1–16. 20. American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]. Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics 2016, 138, e20162591. 21. Fletcher-Watson, S.; Petrou, A.; Scott-Barrett, J.; Dicks, P.; Graham, C.; O’Hare, A.; Pain, H.; McConachie, H. A Trial of an IPadTM Intervention Targeting Social Communication Skills in Children with Autism. Autism 2016, 20, 771–782. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Wartella, E.; Rideout, V.; Lauricella, A.R.; Connell, S. Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology. 2013. Available online: https:// cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ParentingAgeDigitalTechnology.REVISED.FINAL_.2014.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 23. Radesky, J.; Weeks, H.; Ball, R.; Schaller, A.; Yeo, S.; Durnez, J.; Barr, R. Mobile Device Sampling: An Unobtrusive, Objective Measure of Child Smartphone and Tablet Use. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e2019351. 24. Callaghan, M.N.; Reich, S.M. Are Educational Preschool Apps Designed to Teach? An Analysis of the App Market. Learn. Media Technol. 2018, 43, 280–293. [CrossRef] 25. Flewitt, R.; Messer, D.; Kucirkova, N. New Directions for Early Literacy in a Digital Age: The IPad. J. Early Child. Lit. 2015, 15, 289–310. [CrossRef] 26. Kucirkova, N.; Flewitt, R. Understanding Parents’ Conﬂicting Beliefs about Children’s Digital Book Reading. J. Early Child. Lit. 2020, 146879842093036. [CrossRef] 27. Rideout, V. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight; Common Sense Media: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017. 28. Kabali, H.K.; Irigoyen, M.M.; Nunez-Davis, R.; Budacki, J.G.; Mohanty, S.H.; Leister, K.P.; Bonner, R.L. Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children. Pediatrics 2015, 136, 1044–1050. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Kucirkova, N. A Taxonomy and Research Framework for Personalization in Children’s Literacy Apps. EMI Educ. Media Int. 2018, 55, 255–272. [CrossRef] 30. Soni, N.; Aloba, A.; Morga, K.S.; Wisniewski, P.J.; Anthony, L.A. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 419–431. 31. Troseth, G.L.; Russo, C.E.; Strouse, G.A. What’s next for Research on Young Children’s Interactive Media? J. Child. Media 2016, 10, 54–62. [CrossRef] 32. Brito, R.; Dias, P. “Which Apps Are Good for My Children?”: How the Parents of Young Children Select Apps. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2020, 26, 100188. [CrossRef] 33. Kewalramani, S.; Palaiologou, I.; Arnott, L.; Dardanou, M. The Integration of the Internet of Toys in Early Childhood Education: A Platform for Multi-Layered Interactions. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2020, 28, 197–213. [CrossRef] 34. Broekman, F.L.; Piotrowski, J.T.; Beentjes, H.W.J.; Valkenburg, P.M. A Parental Perspective on Apps for Young Children. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 142–151. [CrossRef] 35. Yelland, N.J. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Young Children and Multimodal Learning with Tablets. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 847–858. [CrossRef] 36. Christensen, C.; Hoisington, C.; Vahey, P.; Hupert, N.; Pasnik, S. PBS KIDS Play & Learn Science Evaluation Report; Education Development Center, Inc.: New York, NY, USA; SRI International: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2019. 37. Goodwin, K. Highﬁeld, KiTouch and iLearn: An examination of ‘educational’ Apps. In Proceedings of the Early Education and Technology for Children Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 14–16 March 2012; pp. 14–16. 38. Gray, C.; Dunn, J.; Moffett, P.; Mitchell, D. Mobile devices in early learning: Evaluating the use of portable devices to support young children’s learning. Rep. Comm. Irish Educ. Auth. 2017. [CrossRef] 39. Rideout, V.J.; Hamel, E. The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and Their Parents. 2006. Available online: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/7500.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 40. Dubé, A.K.; Alam, S.S.; Xu, C.; Wen, R.; Kacmaz, G. Mathematical Learning and Cognition in Early Childhood; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 223–248. 41. Lynch, J.; Redpath, T. ‘Smart’ Technologies in Early Years Literacy Education: A Meta-Narrative of Paradigmatic Tensions in IPad Use in an Australian Preparatory Classroom. J. Early Child. Lit. 2014, 14, 147–174. [CrossRef] 42. Shuler, C. ILearn II: An Addendum An Analysis of the Games Category of Apple’s App Store; The Joan Ganz Cooney Center: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Available online: https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/ilearn-ii-an-analysis-of-the-education- category-on-apples-app-store/ (accessed on 3 March 2021). 43. Papadakis, S. Tools for Evaluating Educational Apps for Young Children: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347895529_Tools_for_evaluating_educational_ apps_for_young_children_a_systematic_review_of_the_literature (accessed on 3 March 2021). 44. Papadakis, S.; Zaranis, N.; Kalogiannakis, M. Parental Involvement and Attitudes towards Young Greek Children’s Mobile Usage. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2019, 22, 100144. [CrossRef] 45. Knowland, V.; Formby, S. The Use of Technology to Support Literacy in the Early Years in 2015. 2016. Available online: https://cdn.literacytrust.org.uk/media/documents/2016_06_16_free_research_-_technology_use_to_support_emergent_ literacy_2015_6ts4w68.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 46. O’Connor, J.; Fotakopoulou, O. A Threat to Childhood Innocence or the Future of Learning? Parents’ Perspectives on the Use of Touch-Screen Technology by 0–3 Year-Olds in the UK. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 2016, 17, 235–247. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 16 of 17 47. Palaiologou, I. Children under Five and Digital Technologies: Implications for Early Years Pedagogy. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2016, 24, 5–24. [CrossRef] 48. Dighe, S.; Seiden, J. Understanding Parental Engagement in Early Childhood Education in Ethiopia: Perceptions, Practices, and Challenges. Int. J. Early Child. 2020, 52, 37–54. [CrossRef] 49. Toran, M.; Ulusoy, Z.; Aydın, B.; Deveci, T.; Akbulut, A. Evaluation of Mothers’ Views Regarding Children’s Use of Digital Game. Kastamonu Egitim ˘ Derg. 2016, 24, 2263–2278. 50. Broekman, F.L.; Piotrowski, J.T.; Beentjes, H.W.J.; Valkenburg, P.M. App Features That Fulﬁll Parents’ Needs in Apps for Children. Mob. Media Commun. 2018, 6, 367–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Evaluating a course for teaching introductory programming with Scratch to pre-service kindergarten teachers. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2019, 11, 231–246. [CrossRef] 52. He, M.; Irwin, J.D.; Sangster Bouck, L.M.; Tucker, P.; Pollett, G.L. Screen-Viewing Behaviors among Preschoolers. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 29, 120–125. [CrossRef] 53. Nikken, P.; Jansz, J. Developing Scales to Measure Parental Mediation of Young Children’s Internet Use. Learn. Media Technol. 2014, 39, 250–266. [CrossRef] 54. Mcclure, E.R.; Guernsey, L.; Clements, D.H.; Bales, S.N.; Nichols, J.; Michael, N.K.-T.; Levine, H. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood; Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org (accessed on 3 March 2021). 55. Dias, P.; Brito, R.; Ribbens, W.; Daniela, L.; Rubene, Z.; Dreier, M.; Gemo, M.; Di Gioia, R.; Chaudron, S. The Role of Parents in the Engagement of Young Children with Digital Technologies: Exploring Tensions between Rights of Access and Protection, from ‘Gatekeepers’ to ‘Scaffolders’. Glob. Stud. Child. 2016, 6, 414–427. [CrossRef] 56. Plowman, L. Researching Young Children’s Everyday Uses of Technology in the Family Home. Interact. Comput. 2015, 27, 36–46. [CrossRef] 57. Lauricella, A.R.; Wartella, E.; Rideout, V.J. Young Children’s Screen Time: The Complex Role of Parent and Child Factors. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 36, 11–17. [CrossRef] 58. Ozturk, G.; Ohi, S. Understanding Young Children’s Attitudes towards Reading in Relation to Their Digital Literacy Activities at Home. J. Early Child. Res. 2018, 16, 393–406. [CrossRef] 59. McCloskey, M.; Johnson, S.L.; Benz, C.; Thompson, D.A.; Chamberlin, B.; Clark, L.; Bellows, L.L. Parent Perceptions of Mobile Device Use Among Preschool-Aged Children in Rural Head Start Centers. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 83–89.e1. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 285–305. 61. Goh, W.W.L.; Bay, S.; Chen, V.H.H. Young School Children’s Use of Digital Devices and Parental Rules. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32, 787–795. [CrossRef] 62. Chaudron, S.; Di Gioia, R.; Gemo, M. Young Children (0–8) and Digital Technology, a Qualitative Study Across Europe. EUR 29070. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159629895.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). [CrossRef] 63. Common Sense Media. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013. 2013. Available online: https://www. commonsensemedia.org/zero-to-eight-2013-infographic (accessed on 3 March 2021). 64. Vittrup, B.; Snider, S.; Rose, K.K.; Rippy, J. Parental Perceptions of the Role of Media and Technology in Their Young Children’s Lives. J. Early Child. Res. 2016, 14, 43–54. [CrossRef] 65. Colliver, Y. Mothers’ Perspectives on Learning through Play in the Home. Australas. J. Early Child. 2016, 41, 4–12. [CrossRef] 66. Kostyrka-Allchorne, K.; Cooper, N.R.; Simpson, A. The Relationship between Television Exposure and Children’s Cognition and Behaviour: A Systematic Review. Developmental Review; Mosby Inc.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2017; pp. 19–58. 67. McCloskey, M.L.; Thompson, D.A.; Chamberlin, B.; Clark, L.; Johnson, S.L.; Bellows, L.L. Mobile Device Use among Rural, Low-Income Families and the Feasibility of an App to Encourage Preschoolers’ Physical Activity: Qualitative Study. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2018, 1, e10858. [CrossRef] 68. Nathanson, A.I. How Parents Manage Young Children’s Mobile Media Use. In National Symposium on Family Issues; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 9, pp. 3–22. 69. Eutsler, L. Parents’ Mobile Technology Adoption Inﬂuences on Elementary Children’s Use. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 29–42. [CrossRef] 70. Meulman, J.J.; Van der Kooij, A.J.; Heiser, W.J. Principal Components Analysis with Nonlinear Optimal Scaling Transformations for Ordinal and Nominal Data. In The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; Sage Publications: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 49–72. 71. Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 2009, 16, 397–438. [CrossRef] 72. McCutcheon, A. Latent Class Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 1987. 73. Magidson, J.; Vermunt, J.K. Latent Class Models. In The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; Sage: Thousands Oakes, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 175–198. 74. Van Schaik, J.E.; Slim, T.; Franse, R.K.; Raijmakers, M.E.J. Hands-On Exploration of Cubes’ Floating and Sinking Beneﬁts Children’s Subsequent Buoyancy Predictions. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1665. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 82 17 of 17 75. Stamovlasis, D.; Vaiopoulou, J.; Papageorgiou, G. A Comparative Evaluation of Dissimilarity-Based and Model-Based Clustering in Science Education Research: The Case of Children’s Mental Models of the Earth. Int. J. Data Anal. Tech. Strateg. 2020, 12, 247–261. [CrossRef] 76. Straatemeier, M.; van der Maas, H.L.J.; Jansen, B.R.J. Children’s Knowledge of the Earth: A New Methodological and Statistical Approach. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2008, 100, 276–296. [CrossRef] 77. Vaiopoulou, J.; Papageorgiou, G. Primary Students’ Conceptions of the Earth: Re-Examining a Fundamental Research Hypothesis on Mental Models. Presch. Prim. Educ. 2018, 6, 23–34. [CrossRef] 78. Bakk, Z.; Tekle, F.B.; Vermunt, J.K. Estimating the Association between Latent Class Membership and External Variables Using Bias-Adjusted Three-Step Approaches. Sociol. Methodol. 2013, 43, 272–311. [CrossRef] 79. Vermunt, J.K. Latent Class Modeling with Covariates: Two Improved Three-Step Approaches. Polit. Anal. 2010, 18, 450–469. [CrossRef] 80. Stamovlasis, D.; Papageorgiou, G.; Tsitsipis, G.; Tsikalas, T.; Vaiopoulou, J. Illustration of Step-Wise Latent Class Modeling With Covariates and Taxometric Analysis in Research Probing Children’s Mental Models in Learning Sciences. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 532. [CrossRef] 81. Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Zosh, J.M.; Golinkoff, R.M.; Gray, J.H.; Robb, M.B.; Kaufman, J. Putting Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest Suppl. 2015, 16, 3–34. [CrossRef] 82. Radesky, J.S.; Schumacher, J.; Zuckerman, B. Mobile and Interactive Media Use by Young Children: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Pediatrics 2015, 135, 1–3. [CrossRef] 83. Strouse, G.A.; Troseth, G.L. Supporting Toddlers’ Transfer of Word Learning from Video. Cogn. Dev. 2014, 30, 47–64. [CrossRef] 84. Kucirkova, N.; Littleton, K. The Digital Reading Habits of Children: A National Survey of Parents’ Perceptions of and Practices in Relation to Children’s Reading for Pleasure with Print and Digital Books. Book Trust. Available online: http://www.booktrust. org.uk/news-andblogs/news/1371 (accessed on 3 March 2021). 85. Sergi, K.; Gatewood, R.; Elder, A.; Xu, J. Parental Perspectives on Children’s Use of Portable Digital Devices. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 1148–1161. [CrossRef] 86. Sundar, S.S.; Limperos, A.M. Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratiﬁcations for New Media. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2013, 57, 504–525. [CrossRef] 87. US Department of Education. Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update; 2017. Available online: https://tech.ed.gov/ﬁles/2017/01/NETP17.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2021). 88. Cingel, D.P.; Krcmar, M. Predicting Media Use in Very Young Children: The Role of Demographics and Parent Attitudes. Commun. Stud. 2013, 64, 374–394. [CrossRef] 89. Dore, R.A.; Shirilla, M.; Hopkins, E.; Collins, M.; Scott, M.; Schatz, J.; Lawson-Adams, J.; Valladares, T.; Foster, L.; Puttre, H.; et al. Education in the App Store: Using a Mobile Game to Support US Preschoolers’ Vocabulary Learning. J. Child. Media 2019, 13, 452–471. [CrossRef] 90. Stamovlasis, D.; Vaiopoulou, J. The Role of Dysfunctional Myths in a Decision-Making Process under Bounded Rationality: A Complex Dynamical Systems Perspective. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 2017, 3, 267–288. 91. Simon, H.A. Models of Bounded Rationality; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982; Volume 2. 92. Papadakis, S.; Vaiopoulou, J.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; Kalogiannakis, M. Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Robotics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Proﬁles. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 204. [CrossRef] 93. Papadakis St Vaiopoulou, J.; Sifaki, E.; Stamovlasis, D.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Vassilakis, K. Factors That Hinder in-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021), Online Streaming, 23–25 April 2021; Volume 2, pp. 55–63.

Journal

Behavioral Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: May 27, 2021

Keywords: educational apps; parent’s perception; PEAU-p; LCA; parents’ profiles

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

Parents’ Perceptions of Educational Apps Use for Kindergarten Children: Development and Validation of a New Instrument (PEAU-p) and Exploration of Parents’ Profiles

References (99)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies