Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Dataset . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Dataset . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

National Survey - DataChildMap

Authors: Raffaghelli, Juliana Elisa;

National Survey - DataChildMap

Abstract

The DataChildMap report investigates how Italian families with children aged 0–6 perceive and manage digital technologies in domestic and educational contexts. The study is based on a national survey (N=2000; n=780 for the 0–6 group) conducted between March and May 2023 using a CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) method with stratified random sampling. To ensure inclusivity, respondents with lower education levels were also reached via phone interviews. The questionnaire, implemented via LimeSurvey, was structured into sections capturing: (1) family demographics, parental education, and digital skills; (2) children’s age, educational setting, and technology use; (3) household access to digital devices and connectivity; and (4) parental perceptions and concerns regarding data privacy, digital rights, and educational technologies in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Items explored the use of educational platforms, social media, smart toys, and AI-based tools, alongside attitudes toward adult supervision, institutional support, and public-private collaborations in technology provision. Likert scales and open responses were combined to capture nuanced opinions. The survey results reveal that parents’ knowledge of ECEC digital practices is limited, with awareness shaped by education level and geography. Despite recognizing potential learning benefits, families express concerns about data privacy, profiling, and insufficient institutional communication. These findings underscore the need for policies and co-educational strategies that enhance critical digital literacy and safeguard children’s rights. In this open data record, we present: a) The Codebook b) The dataset. Please consider that the city of respondent's, school details and some open responses have been eliminated for anonymisation purposes. c) The initial report elaborated in the context of the research. All data respect the current legislation on protection and confidentiality in the processing of personal data, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 2016/ 679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union. 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuaIs about the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR. All data have been processed using identification codes to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants and the results, within the framework of the Belmont Report and the Code of Integrity in Research of the University of Padova (LINK) Ethical approval was obtained upon the project funding in accordance with the institutional guidelines of the Department of Philosphy, Sociology, Pedagogy and Applied Psychology (University of Padova) for the collection of these data.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average