THE REACTIONS OF THE CHILDREN TOWARDS RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

Öz

The rapid development of communication technologies has had great impact on interpersonal relations together with family and social structure. These technologies, which have made the individual activities of parents more important, have started to play an important role in the relations of parents and their children. Accordingly, this research aims to determine the reactions of students studying at secondary schools towards the restrictions imposed by their parents on communication technologies and their applications. In this study, which was designed as a survey model, procedural diversity was enabled by employing different data collection techniques and content analysis types; categorical data analysis and frequency analysis. In the analysis of the data which were collected by “open-ended question form” and “semi-structured interview”, of the content analysis types, categorical analysis and frequency analysis were utilized. The results of the study show that mothers in particular, impose restrictions on their children more and the role of the parents could vary depending on the gender of the restricted child. Students obey the rules set by their parents to a large extent and its rate is higher in girls than boys. At this point, students’ reactions to their parents are also themed according to their level obedience. While nearly half of the students say that they obey these restrictions willingly, the others say they obey because they have to. However, most of the students who do not obey the restrictions, react against the restrictions and keep on doing secretly.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technology-human interaction,Technology and restriction,Parental responsibility,Parental control,Reaction

ÇOCUKLARIN BİLİŞİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ KULLANIMLARINA YÖNELİK KISITLAMALARA KARŞI TEPKİLERİ

Öz

Gelişen bilişim teknolojileri, bireyler arası ilişkilerde ve beraberinde, aile ve toplumsal yapıda etkisini hızla göstermeye devam etmektedir. Ebeveynlerin bugüne kadar ki bireysel faaliyetlerinin daha da önemli hale gelmesine neden olan bu teknolojiler, ebeveyn ve çocukları arasındaki ilişkilerde önemli rol oynamaya başlamıştır. Bu doğrultuda gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, ortaöğretim kurumlarında öğrenim gören çocukların, bilişim teknolojileri ve uygulamalarına yönelik ebeveynleri tarafından getirilen kısıtlamalara karşı tepkilerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda tarama modelinde tasarlanan çalışmada birden fazla veri toplama tekniği kullanılarak yöntemsel çeşitleme yapılmıştır. Verilerin “açık uçlu soru formu” ve “yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu” ile toplandığı çalışmanın analiz aşamasında, içerik analizi türlerinden kategorisel analiz ve frekans analizi tekniklerinden yararlanılmıştır. Gerçekleştirilen çalışma sonucunda; özellikle annelerin çocuklarına daha çok kısıtlama getirdikleri ve kısıtlamalar konusunda, kısıtlamanın getirildiği çocuğun cinsiyetine göre ebeveyn rollerinin de değişebildiği belirlenmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda öğrencilerin büyük bir oranda getirilen kısıtlamalara uydukları ve kız öğrencilerin getirilen kısıtlamalara uyma oranlarının erkek öğrencilere göre daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu noktada öğrencilerin kısıtlamalara uyma durumları çerçevesinde, ebeveynlere karşı tepkileri de temalaştırılmıştır. Ebeveynleri tarafından getirilen kısıtlamalara uyduğunu belirten öğrencilerin neredeyse yarısı bu kısıtlamalara kendi istekleriyle uyduklarını belirtirken; diğer yarısı ise bu kısıtlamalara uymak zorunda kaldıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Diğer taraftan, yapılan kısıtlamaya uymadığını ifade eden öğrencilerin büyük bir çoğunluğunun getirilen kısıtlamalar karşısında tepki gösterdikleri ve gizlice yapmaya devam ettikleri  belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teknoloji-insan etkileşimi,Teknoloji ve kısıtlama,Ebeveyn sorumluluğu,Ebeveyn kontrolü,Tepki

Kaynakça

1. Alvarez, M., Torres, A., Rodriguez, E., Padilla, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2013). Attitudes and parenting dimensions in parents’ regulation of Internet use by primary and secondary school children. Computers & Education, 67, 69-78.
2. Aponte, R. (2009). The communications revolution and its impact on the family: Significant, growing, but skewed and limited in scope. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 576–586.
3. Austin, E. W. (1990). Effects of family communication on children's interpretation of television. In J. Bryant & J. A. Bryant (Eds.), Television and the American family (pp. 377—395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
4. Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50, 12–26.
5. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant': A dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), Brighton, Sussex, UK.
6. Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Bittman, M., Rutherford, L., Brown, J., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Digital natives? New and old media and children's outcomes. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 161-175.
8. Carvalho, J., Francisco, R., & Relvas, A. (2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 99-108.

9. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
10. Çetinkaya, L., & Sütçü, S. S., (2016). Parents’ Restrictions on Their Children’s Use of Information Technologies and Their Reasons. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 18-36.
11. Dawson B, & Trapp R. G. (2004) Probability & related topics for making inferences about data. Basic & Clinical Biostatistics. 4rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division, Chapter 4, 69-72.
12. Eastin, M., Greenberg, B., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication, 56, 486–504.
13. Güldüren, C., Çetinkaya, L. & Keser, H., (2016). Ortaöğretim Bilgi Güvenliği Farkındalık Ölçeği (BGFÖ) Geliştirme Çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 15(2), 682-695.
14. Greasley, K., Ashworth, P. (2007). The Phenomenology of “approach to studying”: The University Student’s Studies within the Lifework. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 819-843.
15. Haddon, L. (2006). The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. The Information Society, 22, 195–203.
16. Huisman, S., Catapano, S., & Edwards, A. (2012). The impact of technology on families. International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community, 2, 44–62.
17. Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi (18.Baskı). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
18. Laird, R.D, Pettit, G. S., Bates, J.E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents monitoring relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence or corrolated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74(3), 752-768.
19. Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 587-609.
20. Lee, S. J., & Chae, Y. G. (2007). Children's Internet use in a family context: Influence on family relationships and parental mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 640-644.
21. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. California: SAGE Publications. MEB (2014). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri, Örgün Eğitim 2013-2014. T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı, Ankara. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/milli-egitim-istatistikleri-orgun-egitim-2013-2014/icerik/95 adresinden erişildi.
22. Mesch, G. (2006). Family characteristics and intergenerational conflicts over the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 473–495.
23. Mitchell, K., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2005). Police posing as juveniles online to catch sex offenders: Is it working? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(3), 241-267.
24. Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on adolescents. Media Psychology,4, 207-230.
25. Oblinger, D.,& Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Washington, DC: Educause.
26. Özdemir, Y., Kuzucu, Y., & Ak, Ş. (2016). Examining Compulsive Internet Use of Adolescents Based on Adolescents’ and Parents’ Reports, Elementary Education Online, 15(2), 330-343.
27. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. NY: Basic Books.
28. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.).Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
29. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
30. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-5.
31. Ramirez, E., Norman, G. J., Rosenberg, D. E., Kerr, J., Saelens, B. E., Durant, N., Sallis, J. F., (2011). Adolescent screen time and rules to limit screen time in the home. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 379–385.
32. Richards, M. H., Miller, B. V., O’Donnell, P. C., Wasserman, M. S., & Colder, C. (2004). Parental monitoring mediates the effects of age and sex on problem behaviors among African American Urban Young Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(3), 221-233.
33. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769–802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
34. Smith, J. A., & Eatough, V. (2007). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In E. Lyons ve A. Coyle (Eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data In Psychology.(pp. 35-50). Los Angeles: SAGE Pub.
35. Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., & Campione-Barr N. (2004). African American Late Adolescents’ Relationships With Parents: Developmental Transitions And Longitidunal Patterns. Child Development, 75(3), 932-947.
36. Stafford, L., & Hillyer, J. D. (2012). Information and communication technologies in personal relationships. Review of Communication, 12, 290–312.
37. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental Monitoring: A Reinterpretation. Child Development,71(4),1072-1085.
38. Stevenson, O. (2011). From public policy to family practices: Researching the everyday realities of families technology use at home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 336–346.
39. Tavşancıl. E., & Aslan. E. A. (2001). İçerik Analizi ve Uygulama Örnekleri. Ankara: Epsilon Yayınları.
40. Valcke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots, I. (2010).İnternet Parenting Styles and the Impact on Internet Use of Primary School Children. Computers & Education, 55(2), 454-464.
41. Valcke, M.; Wever, D. B., Van Keer, H., & Schellens, T. (2011).Long-term study of safe Internet use of young children. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1292-1305. Van Rooij, A. J., & Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. (2007). Monitor Internet and Youth 2006 and 2007. Developments in Internet Use and the Role of Parenting. http://bit.ly/cFUX09 [Erişim Tarihi: 11.09.2014].
42. Williams, A. L., & Merten, M. J. (2011). iFamily: Internet and social media technology in the family context. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 150–170.
43. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass Media Research: An Indroduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
44. Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking-and rejecting-validity in qualitative research. (Ed.) E. W. Eisner. & A. Peshkin Qualititative Inquiry in Education the Coutinuing Debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers Collage Press.
45. Xu, Y., Farver, J. A. M., Zhang, Z., Zeng, O., Yu., L., & Cai, B. (2005). Mainland Chinese parenting styles and parent-child interaction. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(6), 524-531.
46. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (6.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
47. Yıldız, H., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2014). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Sayısal Uçurum Düzeyleriyle İlgili Görüşlerinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 29(3), 220-235.