Research and analysis

Parental Media Literacy

Published 12 September 2025

Executive summary

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct qualitative research. The research was aimed at understanding parental media literacy needs and challenges, assessing the effectiveness of existing resources, and identifying gaps in provision. Ipsos conducted fifteen focus groups (9 online and 6 face-to-face) and ten in-depth interviews with parents of children aged 7-17 years between March 19 and April 14 2025.

Exploring media literacy

Initial awareness of the term “media literacy” was low, with participants primarily associating it with practical digital skills rather than critical thinking or responsible online behaviour.

After participants were introduced to a definition of media literacy^{[footnote 1]}, they appreciated its scope and recognised its importance for both parents and children in navigating online risks.

Parents emphasised the increasing importance of media literacy in today’s digital age, citing the integral role of the internet in their children’s lives.

Parents’ online activities, experiences and confidence

Participants reported engaging in a wide range of online activities, highlighting the integral role the internet played in their daily routines.

Parents’ confidence in using the internet safely was influenced by their familiarity with websites and sources, their use of online security measures, and their experiences with online scams.

Children often played a crucial role in enhancing their parents’ digital skills, providing guidance on new apps, features, and security measures.

Awareness of organisations offering support for building online confidence was limited, leading participants to express a need for more accessible and targeted support. This included reference guides, training, clearer warnings, and live chat assistance.

Children’s online presence

Children’s online activities primarily centre around entertainment, social interaction and homework.

Participants identified various online risks for children, including exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, contact with strangers, online scams, privacy violations, and misinformation.

While aware of these risks, parents often felt ill-equipped to address them, emphasising the shared responsibility of parents, schools, and online platforms in ensuring children’s online safety.

When seeking information on online safety, participants mainly relied on personal networks and online searches due to low awareness of dedicated organisations and resources focussed on children’s online safety.

Parental Controls

Participants employed a range of supervision methods to help address online risks, including physical controls, technological controls, and discursive strategies.

There was no ‘one size fits all’ approach to parental controls, with usage influenced by several interconnected factors:

• Awareness and understanding of available controls, which varied based on parents’ digital media literacy level, their child’s age, previous negative experiences, and communications from schools.
• The age of children; parents of younger children expressed greater confidence in monitoring and employing physical controls, while parents of older children focused more on communication and collaboration.
• Confidence in applying controls, shaped by parents’ overall confidence with technology and the perceived effectiveness of controls.
• Attitudes towards parental controls, balancing the need for protection with respecting children’s autonomy as they mature.

Parents identified various triggers for applying parental controls, both proactive (e.g., a child receiving their first device) and reactive (e.g., a negative online incident), with conversations with children being a key action following a trigger.

Perceptions of current media literacy resources

Participants responded positively to becoming aware of the existence of media literacy resources, expressing enthusiasm for the support provided and emphasising the importance of increasing awareness of these resources.

5 key factors shaped parents’ engagement with resources:

• Relevance: Information tailored to the child’s age, issues of interest, and platforms used.
• Depth and novelty: Resources that go beyond basic information and provide new insights.
• Practical guidance: Actionable content to help parents implement online safety measures.
• Clarity and presentation: Information that is easy to understand and visually appealing.
• Trustworthiness and credibility: Transparency about the resource provider and their intent.

Participants valued diversity in resource formats. Websites were seen as comprehensive hubs (with filtering options appreciated), infographics as concise summaries and videos as engaging introductions for both parents and children. Interactive elements such as quizzes were helpful for knowledge checks and particularly engaging for younger children.

Participants expressed diverse views on the most effective channels for delivering online safety information. Schools were generally well trusted by participants, while charities were seen as credible but often lacking visibility/familiarity. There were mixed views around government agencies and private organisations, relating to trust and potential biases.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The primary gap in parental media literacy support is the current lack of awareness and knowledge of existing resources.

Future efforts should focus on increasing awareness through trusted channels like schools. There should be consideration around clarity of information and the sources that are promoted, as well as how to maximise engagement of children and parents.

Resources should be designed to be relevant, practical, and trustworthy, catering to diverse levels of confidence and learning styles, and addressing specific parental concerns and trigger points.

2 Introduction

2.1 Background to the research

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct research to help them in understanding and addressing parental media literacy needs. Media literacy for this research was defined as ”being able to critically evaluate information found online, understand that online actions have real-world consequences, contribute to a respectful online environment and help children navigate digital content safely”.

The pervasiveness of digital technology presents both opportunities and challenges for families. Whilst the internet offers easy access to information, education, and entertainment, it also exposes users, notably children and young people, to potential risks such as cyberbullying, misinformation, and inappropriate content. Parents play a crucial role in influencing their children’s online experiences, and so any challenges that parents face regarding media literacy can impact both their own and their children’s online safety and resilience.

The objectives of this research were to:

• Identify key parental media literacy needs and challenges faced by parents.
• Assess the effectiveness of existing media literacy resources in addressing parental needs.
• Identify potential gaps in provision and refinements to existing resources.

2.2 Methodology

To meet the research objectives a qualitative methodology was utilised to enable parents to share their views and ensure appropriate depth of exploration and understanding of key issues.

Ipsos conducted fifteen focus groups with between 6 and 7 parents per group. Each focus group lasted up to 2 hours. In addition, Ipsos conducted ten depth interviews, each lasting up to 1 hour among parents of 7–17-year-olds. 6 of the focus groups were conducted face-to-face and 9 were conducted online. The ten depth interviews were all conducted online or via telephone. Fieldwork took place from 19 March - 14 April 2025.

A discussion guide was designed to structure research sessions, providing time to discuss the following areas:

• Parents’ online activities, experiences and levels of confidence.
• Reactions to a definition of media literacy.
• Children’s online activities and parents’ confidence in supporting their child to use the internet safely.
• Reactions to a selection of media literacy resources. Participants were shown various media literacy resources aimed at parents. It should be noted that the resources shown represent a small number of the resources available and there was a limited time available to show each resource.

A copy of the discussion guide and list of resources shown is provided in the annex.

2.3 Research sample design

The key focus of this research was to explore experiences of, and views towards, resources for parents with lower levels of digital media literacy. As there is no widely accepted standard for measuring digital media literacy, a proxy approach was needed to identify parents likely to face challenges in this area. To help define levels of digital media literacy amongst participants, the selection of parents for the research was shaped by the Minimum Digital Living Standard (MDLS) framework.

The MDLS was developed to establish a “UK benchmark for digital inclusion at the household level”. This was through a collaboration involving researchers and professionals from the University of Liverpool, Loughborough University and the Good Things Foundation.^{[footnote 2]}

The MDLS framework takes a holistic approach to digital inclusion. The framework considers 3 core factors to understand whether a household fully meets, partially meets, or does not meet the minimum digital living standard. These are:

• Access to digital goods and services. For example, broadband able to support all family members accessing at the same time, access to devices like smartphones, laptops or tablets.
• Functional skills. For example, changing settings on your phone, using Zoom/Teams/ Google Classrooms.
• Critical skills. For example, knowing how to apply parental controls, managing online risks, identifying misinformation and understanding digital footprints. These critical skills closely align with key dimensions of media literacy, including the ability to evaluate online content, navigate digital risks, and make informed decisions in digital environments.

“All elements are needed – in combination – for a household with children to feel digitally included.”^{[footnote 3]} The MDLS is designed to be a “starting point for thinking about family needs, barriers and how needs can be met”.^{[footnote 4]}

The MDLS framework was used as a basis for designing the sample for this study. Given the detailed nature of the full framework, and seeking a pragmatic way to apply this to qualitative sampling and recruitment, a number of steps were applied to create an amended version of the MDLS framework for use in this study:

• Reduction of the number of elements included in the digital goods and services, functional skills and critical skills.
• Participants were asked about their self-perceived knowledge and abilities in carrying out a selection of functional and critical skills; for example, confidence in identifying information online that is false or inaccurate. For digital goods and services, participants were asked if their child had access to various technology.
• Participants were scored as either having either a ‘high’ level or ‘low’ level of digital media literacy. Those who self-reported feeling very / fairly confident in carrying out functional and critical skills and with access to a wide range of online goods and services were scored as ‘high’ level. Those who were consistently not very / not at all confident in these skills and / or without access to a range of online goods and services were scored as ‘low’ level.

It is important to note that this approach to using MDLS relied on people’s self-reported confidence in functional and critical skills. While this provides useful insight into perceived confidence, previous research by Ofcom has shown that self-assessed critical skills may not always reflect actual ability.^{[footnote 5]}

Further information on the questions asked and scoring are included within the recruitment screener in the annex.

2.3.1 Research sample structure

The core focus of the research was amongst parents with lower levels of digital media literacy. However, to ensure we captured broad parental reactions to the types of resources designed to support media literacy for parents, the research also included those with higher levels of digital media literacy. Sessions were stratified on this basis.

Sessions were also stratified on the basis of age of child, with 3 broad age bands:

• Parents whose eldest child living at home was 7-10 years old.
• Parents whose eldest child living at home was 11-14 years old.
• Parents whose eldest child living at home was 15-17 years old.

Sampling quotas were also set to include male and female parents, parents from different locations across Great Britain, and participants from ethnic minority backgrounds.

2.4 Interpretations of findings within this report

Qualitative research is illustrative, exploratory and based on participants’ perceptions. It is not meant to provide statistically representative or quantifiable measures of views. When reading this report, please note:

• We refer to ‘participants’ throughout and provide evidence through anonymised verbatim comments. These should not be interpreted as defining the views of all participants but have been selected to provide insight into the views expressed at a particular point in time.
• Quotations have been attributed to individuals identified by key characteristics including the age of the oldest child the parent had, and the participant’s level of digital media literacy.
• Participants’ perceptions may not always be based on factual information. It is important to include these perceptions in the way that participants expressed them, as they help to explain what shapes their perceptions.
• This research focused on the format of resources shown during research sessions and how helpful / useful participants perceived them to be. The research assesses the overall perceptions of resources with regards their format, structure and content. The research was not designed to test the effectiveness of specific resources and therefore the report does not include specific feedback for each resource shown to participants.

2.4.1 Terminology

The table below explains the terminology and definitions used throughout this report.

Table 2.1: Vocabulary used in this report

Terminology	Explanation	Derived from
Media literacy	Media literacy is about being able to critically evaluate information found online, understand that online actions have real-world consequences, contribute to a respectful online environment and help children navigate digital content safely.	Provided by DSIT
Lower digital media literacy	Scored a total of between 18-48 from the sum of 12 statements where 1 was very confident and 4 was not at all confident.	Developed for this research, using the MDLS framework as a foundation.
Higher digital media literacy	Scored a total of between 12-17 from the sum of 12 statements where 1 was very confident and 4 was not at all confident.	Developed for this research, using the MDLS framework as a foundation.

3 Exploring media literacy

This chapter explores how media literacy, specifically referring to online capability, is understood by participants. Furthermore, their reactions to a definition of the term shared during the research sessions, and the perceived importance of media literacy skills.

Participants were first asked for their spontaneous understanding of the term ‘media literacy’ before being shown the definition in the box below.

Media literacy is about being able to critically evaluate information found online, understand that online actions have real-world consequences, contribute to a respectful online environment and help children navigate digital content safely.

3.1 Unprompted understanding of media literacy

Awareness and understanding of the term “media literacy” was low, both among participants with high and low digital media literacy. Participants tended to spontaneously associate the term ‘media literacy’ with practical digital skills rather than critical thinking skills or responsible behaviour. Initial definitions generated by participants focused on knowing how to use online platforms or understanding internet-specific terminology.

“So being able to use things like YouTube, Netflix, that kind of thing. That’s, to me, that’s media, as well as, I guess, news websites.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

However, participants expressed some confusion about the word “media”, relating it to traditional media outlets rather than spontaneously associating this with online media.

“I’ve not heard it before. Media literacy, though, doesn’t make me think of online actually it makes me think of things like TV and radio and outlets like that, as opposed to literacy around safety on the Internet or apps or anything like that.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

3.2 Views on the importance of media literacy

Despite initial awareness and understanding of the term being low, the definition of media literacy typically resonated with participants. Participants appreciated the scope of the definition, seeing each aspect of the definition as important. They agreed media literacy is crucial for both parents and children to effectively navigate risks to children’s safety online. Examples of risks raised included cyberbullying, interactions with strangers online and exposure to age-inappropriate content. Whilst not typically raised spontaneously when thinking about media literacy, critical thinking (being able to decipher what is real and what is not) and understanding real-life consequences of what is posted online were highlighted by parents as important. Participants reflected that more information and guidance on these types of skills may be useful.

“[Children] know how to use the tools on [their phone] but actually they’re not equipped with knowing about the safety and the guidelines and the risks. So I think those things are all really important, but they need to be explained and taught to everybody.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants recognised that parents need more support developing their technical skills and would like this to be reflected more clearly in the definition of media literacy. Participants reflected that parents are often less technologically savvy than their children. They expressed some concern that parents do not have the technical skills to teach their children how to safely navigate the internet.

“I feel like [my children] know more than I do and that’s not something I’m proud of. [It] bothers me that they teach me what to do online and I feel like I should be guiding them. That’s something that does bother me.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

Participants with low digital media literacy skills were particularly likely to spontaneously raise concerns about their own experiences, including struggling to understand platform settings (e.g. how to change privacy settings to turn off all-player chat on online games).

The use of parental controls and monitoring children’s online activity was raised. As further discussed in chapter 6, both participants with high and low digital media literacy engaged with controls. However, those with low digital media literacy were less likely to mention a broad range of available controls. For example, a participant with lower digital media literacy reported relying on the standard child safety controls set up by their internet provider and reported that they did not know how to adjust these:

“I think [when] your home Internet is set up, you know the safe settings or whatever, just the default one that it was done with. [I’ve got] no idea how to turn that on or off…It’s just when it was set up that was how it’s set up.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Parents felt that media literacy is more important than ever in today’s digital age. Participants recognised the internet as an integral part of their children’s lives. They reflected that children spend a lot of time on devices, noting, for example, that children are required to use the internet to do their homework. Reflecting on the role that the internet plays in children’s lives, they felt that being able to support their children to use the internet safely was crucial. Participants also noted that technology is fast evolving, meaning that parents needed to keep up to date with changes.

“I think we sort of still live a bit in the dark ages and our kids are almost born knowing how to work a phone… we’re not aware of lots of things and it’s ever evolving, you know, the new technology, the new apps. So I think [media literacy skills are] very important and it needs to be very much part of what’s taught in schools because most schools, particularly secondary schools now, the children are pretty much given a laptop from the second that they’re in there and expected to do all of their homework and everything online.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

3.3 Education and support with media literacy

Participants expressed a need for education and support with media literacy. There was recognition that while children often possessed good technical skills, they may lack the ability to apply critical thinking and discern risks when using the internet. Parents expressed a desire for greater support to both teach children these skills and to help parents build their own confidence and technical knowledge to be able to speak to their children about media literacy. Participants suggested that easily accessible information and training about online risks would be helpful resources for parents to help bridge their knowledge gap.

“If you’ve got the information, you know how to talk to them. Do you know what I mean? It’s a little bit like if you at least know something, then the trust can be built. You don’t have to know all of it but just like to have the ability to start the conversations and know how to word it or know the terms or just kind of understand the kind of risks.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

As discussed in following chapters, there was limited awareness of these types of resources being available.

4 Parents’ online activities, experiences and confidence

This chapter covers parents’ online activities and levels of confidence online, including what would make them feel more confident in using the internet and awareness of any support organisations.

4.1 Online activities

Participants described engaging in a wide range of online activities highlighting the integral role the internet played in their daily life.

“Well as soon as I wake up since morning like my Internet is on until I go to bed.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Online activities included practical tasks, communication, information seeking, and entertainment, for example:

• Online banking
• Shopping
• Work (e.g. emails, online meetings)
• Connecting with others through social media and messaging apps
• Staying updated on news
• Entertainment (e.g. streaming services and online gaming)
• Organisation (e.g. family calendars)

4.2 Online confidence

Participants were asked to reflect on how confident they felt using the internet safely on a day-to-day basis. Confidence was shaped by the following 3 factors:

• Familiarity with website/source of communications
• Familiarity with and use of online security measures
• Previous experiences of scams

Familiarity with websites, apps and communications, and the extent to which they were ‘trusted sources’ influenced feelings of confidence. Participants reported feeling more secure using trusted websites or familiar apps. This was particularly the case where participants were confident in security measures put in place by the website/ app for example, security and recourse options for online banking.

On the other hand, using unfamiliar websites or receiving emails/ links from unknown sources decreased confidence, leading to concerns about scams and data security. Participants expressed concerns about suspicious links, pop-ups, fake websites and using public Wi-Fi.

“I don’t, kind of, go near random websites or random apps or adverts and emails and stuff like that. I just steer clear, stick to what I know, and then that’s why I feel confident.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Familiarity with and use of online features to support privacy and online security also shaped online confidence. Those expressing higher levels of online confidence described proactively putting online security measures in place and, as a result, felt a sense of control over their online use. These participants mentioned security measures such as using strong passwords, two-factor authentication, using a VPN and installing antivirus software.

Participants reporting higher online confidence often noted feeling confident in identifying and avoiding potential threats like scams and phishing emails.

Those expressing lower levels of online confidence described a lack of understanding for how different online features such as security settings worked. They felt concerned about security threats, for example scams, phishing attempts and data breaches. These participants were more likely to express a sense of lack of control around online security.

Negative experiences of scams, including account hacking, impacted feelings of confidence amongst participants, regardless of their level of digital media literacy. Where participants had direct negative experiences, they tended to report feeling less secure when online. Examples included nearly falling for a phishing email, in-game purchase scams, personal data breaches and social media accounts being hacked. These experiences made participants more cautious about using trustworthy sites and how they shared their personal data online.

“Well, recently my [social media account] got hacked… I’m quite shocked that I’ve got hacked into because I didn’t really click on any links. It’s only for friends and families. So I don’t know how I got hacked onto that and I couldn’t get it back.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

4.3 Support in using the internet safely

Participants identified children as a source of information and guidance in online technical skills. Children often played a significant role in supporting their parents’ digital skills, teaching them about new apps, features, or security measures. Participants described going to their children for guidance and their children teaching them about features to use the internet more safely, for example, using two-step verification.

“Well, my children help me a lot to navigate things online… So, yeah, my confidence comes kind of from learning new things. If I’ve got time, I’ll go and research and then obviously my children showing me what to do online, that’s where my confidence comes from.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

Awareness of organisations that support building general online confidence was low. Participants were generally aware that various types of organisations ran online safety campaigns (e.g., banks) or offered information and support (e.g., online safety talks and newsletter content from schools). However, awareness and use of these were limited. Participants also mentioned coming across online skills training sessions provided by the local council. However, they noted that these were for older people without technical abilities and therefore were not considered personally relevant.

“I’ve definitely seen courses and things for like, you know, how can you improve your skills? But I feel like that’s, I mean I’m not, it’s maybe a bit ageist, but I feel like that’s sort of more aimed at people who are less, sort of less used to it.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants expressed a desire for more readily available and targeted support. Participants – both those with higher and lower digital media literacy - suggested that guidance and support on online safety practices could help enhance their online confidence. Across all types of parents there was a desire for clearer guidance and support on online safety practices. Participants suggested:

• Easily accessible guides (e.g. clearer explanations of privacy and security settings during account set up for different platforms).
• Training/ online courses (e.g. navigating new apps, how security features and controls work; identifying and avoiding scams).
• Clearer warnings about potential risks on websites (e.g. having a system to vet safety like the food hygiene ratings for websites and apps; having warnings pop up about potential risks like scams).
• Live chat support for immediate assistance (e.g. using the chat to ask questions to get real time help about online safety or security concerns on websites).

“I like guides. I’m a kind of visual learner… And then having someone that is more kind of literate and asking them questions as well helps me.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

However, while there was a desire for online safety resources, participants reported they would struggle to engage with resources in their busy lives and to keep up with new emerging features and platforms.

5 Children’s online presence

This chapter focuses on parents’ perceptions of their children’s online presence, including activities that their children engage in, and views on potential risks. It also explores how confident participants felt in helping their child navigate the internet safely.

5.1 Children’s online activities

Children’s online activities primarily centre around entertainment, social interaction and homework. Common uses included:

• Gaming (e.g. Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite, and Call of Duty).
• Watching videos on YouTube and TikTok.
• Communication and engagement on social media platforms, including Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp.
• Entertainment on streaming services.
• Educational activities, such as completing homework and accessing online learning platforms.

Participants with younger children (typically 7–10-year-olds) reported their child using tablets to play games, watch videos or do homework. Where younger children were using the internet to speak to friends or family this was typically with parental supervision or oversight and on messaging or calling platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, JusTalk and FaceTime). Participants with older children also reported their children playing online games, watching videos and doing homework online, as well as communicating with family and friends. However, parents noted that as children became older, they tended to be allowed greater freedom to do these activities independently. Parents with older children (typically 15-17 year-olds) identified a range of social media used by their children (e.g., TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat) and noted that they had less oversight on their children’s social media accounts.

5.2 Risks to children’s safety online

Participants identified a range of risks that children may face online. A summary of issues raised is shown below:

• Exposure to/sharing inappropriate or harmful content (including violent and sexual content)
• Cyberbullying
• Contact with strangers or online predators, grooming
• Online scams and phishing
• Privacy violations
• Misinformation and fake news
• Spending money on in-app purchases
• Spending too much time online/addiction to online games and social media

As shown in the bullet points above, participants identified a range of concerns in relation to their children using the internet. Specific concerns were raised about children seeing inappropriate content online that could harm them. For example, through clicking links or seeing videos on YouTube or TikTok not intended for their age. Beyond inappropriate content, participants expressed concerns about cyberbullying, interactions with strangers and online grooming. Across the research there were participants who shared examples of their children experiencing negative situations. For example, bullying on a WhatsApp group chat and communicating with a stranger on an online gaming platform. The anonymity and ease of communication online were seen as contributing to these risks.

Some concerns were raised around the default features of apps potentially posing risks to children. For example, participants shared examples of Snapchat’s location settings, the YouTube autoplay feature and the TikTok algorithm showing content not initially searched for.

“My 13-year-old asked to set up Snapchat. All his friends have got it. So he set it up and then 5 minutes later I had a look at all the settings and I was like, really scared because [it] had location services on so you could see his actual location where he would be sending Snapchats from. I turned it off and made everything private.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy.

Participants expressed growing concern about the evolving nature of online risks as their child grows older. Participants with teenagers reported social media use becoming more prominent, with the associated risks of cyberbullying and interacting with strangers. As older children (especially those aged 15-17) are allowed to use the internet more independently, participants expressed concerns about balancing giving their child freedom and navigating these risks. There was general agreement amongst participants that conversations around online safety should begin prior to adolescence – before children start secondary school or typically get a smartphone – in order to prepare them for the increased risks that occur at this age.

“We missed the boat on it and we’re now far too down the line that we’d be able to do any kind of control.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

Digital ubiquity and rapid technological change were recognised as key challenges for parents navigating risks to children’s online safety. Participants consistently highlighted the pervasive nature of technology and the rapid pace of digital advancements as significant challenges in keeping their children safe online. Participants with both high and low digital media literacy expressed feelings of being overwhelmed. They felt they struggled to keep up with the constantly evolving digital landscape, new platforms, trends, and associated risks. Parents felt pressured to adapt quickly to new technologies and platforms their children were using, often feeling like they were one step behind emerging risks.

“It’s like a wildfire… you’re constantly trying to catch up and you’re always one step behind.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

5.3 Confidence in helping children navigate the internet safely

While participants were aware of the risks, they did not always feel equipped to deal with them. Lack of confidence amongst participants was often compounded by the recognition that children are often more tech-savvy than their parents. This made it difficult to monitor their activities and understand the platforms and apps they use. This combination of heightened awareness of online risks and a perceived lack of skills and resources to address them contributed to a sense of unease and vulnerability.

Participants identified the use of technology as a way to help monitor and control children’s online activity. Among participants with both low and high digital media literacy, there were mentions of setting up different controls. These included in-built parental control features on devices to monitor activities, using family sharing accounts and enabling age restrictions on platforms. However, participants with low digital media literacy were more likely to rely on manual ways of monitoring their children’s online activities. As further discussed in chapter 6, participants with higher digital media literacy tended to engage with a broader range of controls including technological ones.

“I use the Amazon Kids subscription, so I pay about 40 pound a year for it. So you can filter again, content based on age group. You can turn off the Internet browser and stuff like that. So I disable the Internet browser for her so she can only really download apps, read books, that sort of thing, and watch some, you know, approved videos.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

5.4 Views on who plays a role in children’s online safety

Parents saw themselves as playing a key role in supporting their children in using the internet safely. Participants highlighted the importance of parents setting boundaries, monitoring online activities and having open conversations with their children to support children in using the internet safely.

Participants felt that schools and online platforms also have a responsibility for helping children navigate the internet safely. There was general agreement that schools should provide online safety education as part of the curriculum, equipping children with the knowledge and skills to navigate the digital world responsibly. There was also strong agreement across participants that online platforms themselves have a responsibility to create safer online environments. For example, through stricter age verification measures, content moderation, and clearer guidance on privacy settings. Whilst seen as having a key role in online safety, there was very limited awareness of relevant resources provided by platforms.

When seeking information about using the internet safely, participants primarily relied on personal networks and online searches. Friends, family members with IT expertise, and colleagues were mentioned as trusted sources of advice. Participants also reported they would go to search engines to look for information, using search terms like “keeping my kids safe online” or “online security.” Or if looking for something specific around a particular platform or video game, they would type in their specific query relating to that site/game.

“I’d just try Google Search or something… I’d ask other parents as well what they’re doing.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Awareness of specific organisations or resources dedicated to children’s online safety was low. While there was awareness that support is provided through schools (e.g. online safety talks from the police, sending out communications to parents), participants were typically unable to recall the names of any specific support organisations. When asked what support would be useful to enhance their confidence and ability to keep their children safe online, participants suggested:

• Clear, practical guidance on setting up parental controls.
• Age-appropriate resources addressing specific online risks.
• A centralised resource hub.

The importance of information about online safety coming from a reliable and trusted source was also highlighted.

“For me it’d be, you know, guides on maybe setting up parental controls on smart devices, PCs and you know, laptops, that sort of thing. They would be a good starting place.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

Views on trusted sources of support are further explored in chapter 7.

6 Parental Controls

This chapter examines how participants use parental controls to keep their child safe online and what factors influence why and how they use these tools.

Parental controls are tools and features that allow parents to manage and regulate their children’s access to and activities on digital devices and online platforms. These parental controls can also be supplemented by other parenting strategies such as open communication.

6.1 Current use of parental controls

A range of supervision methods were mentioned as ways to help address different online risks. These included:

Physical controls: controls carried out physically e.g., removal of a device or physically checking a device.

“Her phone stays out of her bedroom at nighttime.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

Technological controls: controls put in place via technology such as an app, passwords, child-specific profiles.

“I’ve got this app called Parental Child Lock. It’s tied to my phone…So 8 o’clock their apps will disappear.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Use of these varied across participants and included:

• Restricting / requiring approval for applications to be downloaded or checking internet histories (either physically e.g., looking at their child’s phone or via an application) to avoid exposure to “inappropriate” content.
• Reviewing friend requests or other communications to avoid grooming or inappropriate contact from strangers / cyberbullying.
• Restricting physical access to Wi-Fi or devices, including physically removing devices or using applications to restrict times during which children could use a device.

Participants also described discursive strategies where they had conversations with children to raise their awareness of risks and discuss how to manage these.

6.2 Key factors influencing the use of parental controls

There was no “one size fits all” approach to parental controls. The level of technological awareness, confidence of the parent in using parental controls, the age of the child and overall attitudes towards parental controls informed which approaches participants were aware of, considered and used in their day-to-day lives.

Several interconnected factors influenced how parents utilised parental controls. These emerged as important regardless of participants’ level of digital media literacy. These factors are summarised in the bullet points below and then outlined in more detail.

• Awareness of parental controls
• Understanding of parental controls
• Confidence in applying parental controls
• Age of the child
• Attitudes towards parental controls

6.2.1 Awareness and understanding of parental controls

Awareness of parental controls was varied and shaped by:

• Digital media literacy level: People with higher levels of digital media literacy had greater awareness of a broader range of parental controls and strategies.
• Age of the child: Those with younger children tended to have more oversight over their online activities.
• Previous experience: Parents whose child had experienced a negative experience online tended to be more aware of parental controls because they were more likely to have looked into them.
• Communications: Some parents who had received communications from school noted how these had prompted them to take action on parental controls.

Awareness varied by the type of parental control. Some types of parental control were very well-known. These included checking internet browsing history, with many participants spontaneously identifying these as ways to supervise their child’s online activity. However, other types of parental controls – particularly those related to certain applications - were less likely to be mentioned by participants. The table below summarises which types of controls typically had higher and lower levels of awareness across the research.

Spectrum of awareness of parental control options

More awareness	Less awareness
Remove devices / disconnect Wi-Fi / Restrict time on devices	Family sharing or controls which allow parents to set up as a family
Check internet browsing history / Supervision of device use (for example, only allowed to use in living room)	Wi-Fi controls / Restricting access through pins or other passwords
Child version of sites like Disney Kids or YouTube Kids	App or Game specific controls such as for Snapchat or Roblox / Browser specific controls

Awareness of technological controls (such as app or game specific controls) was largely based on the controls that parents were currently using.

“There’s a lot of stuff that a lot of parents probably don’t realise that they can actually do with the technology that they’ve got. And there are things in place from those big tech companies that they’ve put in, I think to help you protect your children with you know, kids’ profiles and things like that.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy

Parents with higher digital media literacy were more likely to describe implementing technological controls. However, regardless of the level of digital media literacy, parents expressed uncertainty about the full range of controls available across different applications. Lack of certainty could be because the application was newer, or they had less personal experience using that type of application (such as gaming applications).

“We don’t let them have Snapchat for example. Obviously, that’s got a reputation of not being able to set up those precaution[s].” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy

Those with lower digital media literacy were less likely to mention implementing technological controls and more likely to cite using physical controls to monitor their child’s online activities. For example, manually reviewing their child’s messages. In some instances, participants noted that they sought their child’s help to navigate devices and data on these.

“Half the time I didn’t know what I was looking for anyway [on parental controls]. [The child] were having to show me how to get into the friend’s thing …then I just scan through, making sure that no one had slipped in.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Understanding of how parental controls work in practice and how to implement them practically was perceived as challenging. Parents at times struggled to find information to make them aware of controls and which provided knowledge on how to implement and use them.

“But I think it does take exploring or wanting to [investigate parental monitoring]. To be able to find those things. I think as a parent you’ve got to kind of look…well what is there available? I don’t think there’s anything that plainly tells you.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

6.2.2 Age of children

Strategies towards parental controls shifted as children got older. Participants often noted that this shift reflected how observable a child’s online activity was, and the degree of autonomy they had. There was an acceptance that approaches to parental control would need to change as their child grew older.

Participants with a younger child expressed greater confidence in their ability to monitor their children. Typically describing the use of physical controls, parents with younger children generally expressed greater feelings of confidence because:

• Younger children’s online activities were simpler and more easily observable.

“I’m 99.9% of the time at the side of him or in the same room.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

• Younger children did not have access to their own personal device (they had to use a household device) or other device with parental controls.

Parents with younger children (7-10 year olds) were more likely to employ physical controls (either through supervision or physically removing devices).

“In my case because my daughter is still only 7 years old…I download all the episodes…and disconnect Wi-Fi.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

However, participants recognised that their child could be interacting with other children whose restrictions were different. Participants discussed that this could undermine their own controls (e.g., if they did not allow their child access to an app but other children in their class had it) or their child could be shown potentially inappropriate content by another child who did not have controls on their device.

“A lot of my son’s friends play games that are not appropriate, that I know are not appropriate for their age…I think that that is maybe difficult for him because we see that puts him as an outsider… no matter how much I protect my child, what are they going to be coming into contact with? You know, there’s children at school talking about Squid game.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants with younger teenagers (11–14-year-olds) struggled to find a balance between the different parental controls available. Parents described using a range of approaches, covering technological controls to discursive strategies, based on the child’s “maturity”, their own relationship with their child, and their past experiences with parental controls (notably how effective they felt they had been when their child was younger).

“My missus goes through their phones once a week when they’re at school, they don’t know that we can get it [the messages] …This is just like a spy job, you cannot do it in front of them.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants with older children (15–17-year-olds) were more likely to describe using discursive parenting strategies (such as having conversations with their child) than technological controls. Older children’s autonomy was recognised and parents focused more on communications with their child or tried to monitor their child’s internet history in collaboration with their child.

“I used to check their phones a lot now I feel like I can trust them, and they often will come and say we’ve seen this or [that].” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

“When they [the child] were younger, we had and still do now that if they want an app on their phone, we’ve got family sharing, they need to ask…they can’t just download anything really that they want…[now] it is about the trust.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

6.2.3 Confidence using parental controls

Confidence in using parental controls and in their overall approach to safeguarding their child’s online presence varied. Personal confidence in using technology and age of child played a key role. Participants reflected on the scale of the risks to children online, and there was general recognition - across parents with varying levels of digital media literacy - that it was challenging to be 100% confident in parental controls.

“No parent can say that they’re 100% confident that their kids are protected because you know, kids, especially teenagers, they want their own space.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants who felt more confident explained this was because they were confident in using technology generally. In addition, they felt that their child was young and easily supervised, or that they felt they could easily source the relevant information on parental controls should an issue occur. Participants who felt particularly confident in their day-to-day use of technology were more likely to feel they would be able to find out more information and to implement the advice given.

“Google helps me [find information] day to day…. It’s got me through 20 years. But if it’s for a specific product I normally look on the product website. So, for example, I’ve got a PlayStation, and I put parental controls on there.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

Participants who lacked confidence reported feeling less confident in using technology in general, typically had older children, and were unsure of their children’s online activities. They were also more likely to feel overwhelmed by the prospect of monitoring their children online. Furthermore, they were unsure where to find information on parental controls or how to report incidents.

“We don’t know how to step in and manage these situations. We don’t know who to go to…It’s just up to us to…educate ourselves on an individual basis. Then a lot of us don’t have the time or we don’t know where to start. We don’t know what we’re doing and then it doesn’t happen. And then, then you end up hearing scary stories and then you just get more terrified instead of taking an action to actually do something proactive”. Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

The overall effectiveness of technological parental controls was questioned. Some participants cited experiences where their child had been able to override or to get around parental controls. This was particularly the case with ID and age verification online, which was perceived by participants as easy to fool and simple for children to get around. This impacted participants’ confidence in controls they implemented.

“It’s just a simple thing to get round it, they just change the year that they were born… it’s [social media] not secure…it makes it completely pointless.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

There was recognition that children would be able to bypass controls if motivated. This impacted overall confidence in using parental controls, especially technological ones. Participants reflected that discursive parenting strategies such as discussions with your children could not be circumvented in the same way. Even participants who felt more confident in technology recognised the challenges of keeping up with their child’s increasing skills and the constantly evolving online landscape. Participants felt children’s ability to circumvent restrictions was a recurring concern, highlighting the limitation of technology-driven controls alone.

“I do look at the [internet] history, but that can be deleted. When I go in, it won’t show me all of where she’s gone to.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

“She can’t go online from 5 till midnight…but she knows how to bring [the apps] back [to reappear on the device]”. Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

6.2.4 Attitudes towards parental controls

Participants perceived the implementation of parental controls as a complex balancing act between protecting their child online and respecting their growing autonomy. This balance shifted as children matured. Participants recognised both the advantages and disadvantages of parental controls. Their attitudes were shaped by a variety of factors which informed their choices of parental controls (alongside other factors such as awareness, the age of their child, and confidence in applying parental controls).

Participants recognised that there were advantages to using parental controls. But where there was a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of parental controls these advantages were perceived as limited. Advantages included: content filtering, screen time management and increased security regarding the child’s location.

“We have processes in place on our iPhones and devices where we can monitor what they’re doing to a certain extent”. Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants also expressed several reservations and concerns about parental controls, which informed whether they chose to use them or which parental controls they preferred to use. Participants mentioned the negative impact on their child’s privacy as they grow older, the impact on their child’s independence / social life and the potential impact of limiting access to educational resources.

“My 11-year-old now, she’s alright now because it’s all the innocent stuff…but when it comes to 14, 15, I think it’s going to be a different thing where they’ll probably want their boyfriends and girlfriends or whatever. So, obviously, they wouldn’t want me to see their messages”. Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Attitudes towards parental controls were also informed by how ‘easy’ or ‘difficult’ it would be to implement with their own child. This was informed by their own relationship with their child; parents with more challenging relationships noted that influencing online use could be difficult to navigate.

“I don’t [check their phone], I’ll be honest…I should check her [phone] more often because I don’t know who she is speaking to on Snapchat I don’t do it like because she’s difficult”. Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

6.3 Triggers for applying parental controls or seeking further information regarding online safety for children

Parents identified a variety of different scenarios that prompted them to apply parental controls. These scenarios included both pro-active / preventative action, and reactive action in response to a specific situation or trigger.

Pro-active or preventative triggers mentioned by participants included situations or communications that prompted participants to look into parental controls and information about online safety:

• Age / school milestones: Participants particularly mentioned the transition from primary to secondary school.
• Child receiving a device for the first time: Participants highlighted their child receiving their own personal device as a key trigger point (rather than a device used by the household).

“That age when you’re about to give them a phone…Because that takes it up a notch.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy.

• School communications: Some schools did communicate to parents on general online safety and actions that could be taken.
• Communications from friends / family or parenting communities: Participants explained that when a family member or friend with an older child explained the approaches they had taken, this could prompt them to act themselves. This also included friends or family members guiding parents through the process to put measures in place such as installing controls.
• Media coverage: During fieldwork period, the TV programme ‘Adolescence’ had just been released, this and the media coverage surrounding it was mentioned as a trigger to seek further support. Other parents mentioned documentaries or other series such as ‘Red Rose’.

Reactive triggers mentioned by participants included experiences of specific incidences either experienced by the child themselves, or by children they knew or in their local area:

• Incident involving their child: This could range from the child being scammed online to someone inappropriate contacting the child directly.

“You start searching the point at which something happened that really scared you… that’s reactionary to something negative that’s happened rather than preventative.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

• Incidents at the school or with friends / family: Some schools would communicate about incidents (such as Cyberbullying) or there would be specific incidents mentioned via word of mouth or parenting groups (e.g. WhatsApp).

The actions taken by these triggers could vary widely and depended on the factors outlined above (parent’s awareness of what was available, confidence, age of their child and their overall attitudes towards parental control).

A conversation with their child was a key action taken by parents after a trigger point. The content of these conversations varied. Examples included rules to follow (for example, reviewing all friend requests and changing online profiles from public to private) and general check-ins on whether they had seen anything online or increasing their child’s awareness of the risks. While there was a recognition that these conversations needed to be pro-active (earlier than secondary school) reports of this happening were not consistent. This suggests that there is a gap in terms of when these conversations should take place.

7 Perceptions of media literacy resources

A wide range of online resources relating to media literacy and online safety are currently publicly available.

In order to provide stimulus material for the sessions with participants, DSIT and Ipsos identified a selection of resources. These were used to prompt response and discussion amongst participants, and to explore views on which types of formats they found engaging and why. The range of resources were used as prompts to gather feedback on the following:

• Format. Resources shown included the following formats for conveying information:
  • Interactive quizzes and activities.
  • Infographics.
  • Videos.
  • Websites with webpages dedicated to specific topics.
• Sources. Resources included those from the following sources:
  • Charities.
  • Commercial organisations including brands, social media platforms and internet providers.

Resources were selected to ensure a mix of the following:

• Resources aimed at different age groups.
• Resources with different design styles (e.g., variations in imagery, look and feel).

A selection of resources was shown during each research session. This chapter explores what types of resources parents found most engaging and the factors influencing this engagement.

7.1 Overall reactions towards media literacy resources

When shown example resources during research sessions, participants responded positively to the existence of resources that helped them protect their child online. Reactions differed depending on the type of material being shown and how relevant it was (depending on the age / maturity of their child). Despite this, participants were generally enthusiastic about the existence of any support. They felt that increasing awareness of what was available was very important to help improve parents’ ability to protect their children.

“I just think the finding out about all of these resources, I haven’t heard of any of them, and they do look really good.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

“We could then share them [the resources] with our schools and they could put them on their website… our [parental] communities are going to be so enriched with the information you’ve shared with us tonight.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy

7.2 Key factors influencing engagement with resources

Overall, 5 key aspects of resources influenced how engaging and helpful participants felt they were. These are summarised in the bullet points below and then outlined in further detail.

• Relevance
• Depth and novelty
• Practical guidance
• Clarity and presentation
• Trustworthy and credible

7.2.1 Relevance

Across all resource types, age-relevant content was a key priority for participants, heavily influencing how useful they felt the content would be for their own circumstances. Parents were drawn to information they felt personally resonated and this was strongly based on whether the information felt relevant to the age of their child.

Participants also valued age-tailored content that they felt could be shared with their child, providing opportunity to consider relevant issues together. Content that could be used by both the parent and child was met with positive response. For this to work effectively, participants noted that content needed to feel relevant to their child’s age, and the types of issues that might best relate to their online activities. The style also needed to feel appropriate to the age of their child.

“The information is good, but it’s like quite a childish video with older range information. So, then it’s like who are you sharing it to?” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

Relevance of issue/ platform also played a role in resource engagement. This was especially true when participants expected to find specific information. Equally, when the resource focused on a platform their child didn’t use, which could discourage the parent from engaging with the content.

7.2.2 Depth and novelty

The depth and novelty of content shaped participant views of the resources, with parents keen to have access to information that went beyond ‘the basics’. Participants valued more ‘basic’ information to reinforce existing knowledge or provide a checklist. However, they felt that it was important for resources to go beyond this, by providing more detail for parents to access if desired.

Participants suggested a layered approach to information provision. There were suggestions that a layered approach could use both:

• Concise summary paragraphs which present a short overview of a particular topic.

“Just a nice short, sweet little paragraph with some additional information. It’s. It’s what you want really, not having to read a whole book’s worth of stuff before you understand Internet safety.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

• Option to ‘click through’ to easily access more detailed information.

Novel information was considered engaging. Reiteration of existing knowledge - particularly where there was no signposting to more detailed content- could feel unappealing. What constituted new and novel content varied across participants.

7.2.3 Practical guidance

Participants valued practical information that helped them take action in supporting their child’s online safety. The types of practical tools appreciated by parents included:

• Information about the types of parental controls available.

“I have no idea about screen time apps. Yes, that’s useful to know.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

• Step-by-step instructions for implementing parental controls, adjusting safety settings or monitoring online activity. Those who considered themselves to be less tech-savvy valued screenshots and images to help them understand how to put these in place.

“If you’ve got things like Instagram and Facebook, you, you don’t always know what the privacy settings are on some, you know, they’re often different on each one.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

“I’m thinking that this would be the kind of website I go to where it’s like, okay, well my child wants to download this app. I’m going to see what the website says and see what they suggest about navigating the parental controls and what settings are available.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy.

“Yes, it’s giving you a clear screen shot of what to parent control, so if you’re not very confident in using or changing settings, it’s quite self-explanatory.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

• Content that could be shared with children. For example, conversation starters/ tips on how to have conversations with children and create verbal agreements.
• Signposting for reporting and accessing more support. Participants were keen to know if the resources offered signposting to places where concerns could be reported, or more individualised support could be accessed. They felt that this would be a helpful addition and particularly useful where parents might be seeking information in response to their child having a negative experience. Suggestions included signposting to a chat function, contact numbers of direct support and links to external organisations such as relevant government bodies, the police and reporting mechanisms for specific online platforms. There was also suggestion for details about ways in which children could directly report concerns.

7.2.4 Clarity and presentation

• Participants sought ‘digestible’ content. Blocks of text – particularly where this was small text - were considered unappealing and disengaging, with participants’ preferences for text to be broken down into shorter paragraphs and for bullet points.

“With me I like everything. I don’t like too detailed info because that will just literally go over me. It will be like top tips, quick, easy bullet points that can draw me to it to remember it or look into it more. Yeah… Yeah, it’s not too much information…Quick, easy.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

“It’s what I was saying before about it’s just being paragraphs. I mean, it feels like you should read an essay before you understand anything. And who as a tired parent is has really got the stamina to go through all that in that way.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants reflected on their busy lifestyle and felt that they simply did not have time to read long blocks of text. With this in mind, there were positive comments around the inclusion of estimated reading times for written content.

Look and feel could influence engagement and views on credibility of the resource. Across resources there was a desire for dynamic design that made the resources feel inviting and credible. The following elements were raised by participants:

• Use of colours and imagery to avoid content appearing dry and dull.
• Relatable imagery of children and families.

“Yeah, it looks like fun, like with the different people and the pictures and the colours that have been used. It’s quite inviting.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

• A modern and professional look and feel to help signal that the content was up-to-date and credible. For example, use of imagery that felt like ‘clip art’ suggested to participants that a resource was outdated. The inclusion of advertisements on resources was considered distracting and also (negatively) influenced views towards the credibility of the information.
• Use of jargon or corporate language could make resources difficult to engage with.
• Tone of the information also generated some discussion. Participants felt that a positive tone, that avoided feeling like it was ‘preaching’ at parents was most suited to the topic. There were also mixed views on the use of an emotive tone. Whilst this tone could be eye-catching, the hard-hitting feel could act as a deterrent to engagement.

“If that video [using an emotive tone] came up I [would have] turned it off within 4 seconds because the music itself is just totally depressing now I know there’s bad things out there and I know there’s bad things across the Internet.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Higher digital media literacy.

7.2.5 Trustworthy and credible

Participants’ views on the trustworthiness of information, and consequently their willingness to engage with it, were influenced by the source of the resources. For more information on what types of channels were considered trustworthy and credible see section 7.4.

Participants sought transparency over who was providing the information. Where they struggled to identify who was behind the resources the credibility of the content was questioned.

“I think also you need to know where that information has come from because there’s so much information out there, isn’t there? And they’re all claiming to be the right information. So it needs to have some sort of backing behind it that parents feel, you know, is honest and informative.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

Overall, the following factors were considered important:

• Familiarity: when participants recognised the organisation providing or funding the resource, this influenced their views. Their individual experiences and perceptions of the organisation or brand shaped their views of the information provided.
• Purpose and relevance: regardless of familiarity with the organisation providing the resource, participants felt it important that information be included within resources to explain who the organisation was, and their purpose in disseminating the information.

Credibility was enhanced by mentions of resources being based on academic research or where there was inclusion of content aimed specifically for teachers.

The extent to which the organisation focused on information about using the internet safely also influenced views. Entire organisations or websites dedicated to this issue felt more specialised and credible compared to broader organisations who might have a ‘one-off’ resource on the topic.

• Type of organisation: participants considered whether the organisation was private or charitable. Of key concern was whether private organisations may have commercial motives for providing information and whether the information they provided would be biased.

7.3 Reactions to formats

Diversity of formats was identified as important. Participants felt that it was important that information was provided in a range of different formats to support different learning styles and preferences.

“So you’ve got different options… Because not everyone can absorb information as you can absorb it…Like with me I have to read it and see it a few times. Then it sits with me, you see, that’s how I take it.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

There were also suggestions for resources to consider parents with language barriers where English was not their first language.

Participants expressed positive views towards the provision of resources using different formats to use with children. They felt that this would enable parents to tailor discussions and activities to what they felt would work for their child based on learning styles or needs.

“What about the growing amount of children who have autism or other kinds of learning difficulties and they’re going to process things in a different way.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

7.3.1 Websites

Participants were positive towards multi-layered website formats as a way of providing comprehensive information in one place. They noted that a website format could include content on a range of topics and content using a range of formats. The breadth of content meant that participants anticipated that a comprehensive website could be used over time, with parents revisiting it to access age-relevant content as their child grew older and/or seek guidance on emergent issues.

“This one [website] is a resource I could go back to time and time again until such time as, you know, [my daughter] can legally leave home.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

With this in mind, there were some suggestions for an app version of websites which parents could have downloaded and ready to access when needed.

Navigation of content was considered essential for websites presenting lots of information. As discussed above, layered approaches to information provision was considered a good way to support navigation. For website content, participants were positive towards the use of tiles, dropdowns, expandable boxes and subheadings.

Participants responded positively to the provision of information covering a range of issues and platforms and aimed at a range of children’s ages. The ability to filter on these bases was considered essential to accessing relevant content. Participants valued the ability to filter and identify relevant content based on the age of their child. Whilst parents reflected children had different maturity levels which might affect how useful certain materials were, they felt that guidance on age-appropriate resources was important.

“I like where you can choose the age of the child that you’re concerned about. Then you’ll get the advice that you need.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

“Even though it’s done over a very wide spectrum, you can tailor it all straight away to what. What you need and what you think is going to be useful.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

The opportunity to filter content based on topic (issue and/or platform) was also seen as useful. This would enable parents to tailor information selected based on topics or platforms of interest. Participants reflected that there were different parenting styles which meant that children might have access to platforms at different ages. This meant that the opportunity to filter based on platform as well as age of child would be useful.

“I think it’s similar sort of thing. You can sort of by looking at, by age, you can find things that are more sort of relevant and appropriate. Same with, you know, issues like if you’re having a conversation about why they can’t play Fortnite, you know, maybe there’s some you can target via sort of based on the different, the different options, the different issues and stuff that you can see.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Where resources offered content on a range of issues, the ability to filter on this basis was valued as a way to quickly navigate to content of interest.

“Like I don’t have to waste time reading about, say, Roblox, which is relevant to a lot of her friends, but not to her. So, I’d rather read about TikTok and Snapchat, which are her things and WhatsApp.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants also reflected that looking through lists of issues covered by a comprehensive website could be informative, raising or reminding participants of potential issues.

7.3.2 Infographics

Infographics were considered a useful format for delivering short and concise information. The short and concise nature of infographics was key to their appeal. Participants noted that it was important that infographics were kept short, and that information was presented concisely, avoiding blocks of text. Too much information within an infographic could feel overwhelming.

The perceived relevance of an infographic varied depending on the content. Participants recognised that infographics might cover different topics, and that they would most likely be drawn to those covering topics of personal interest. However, participants also reflected that infographics, by their nature, provided short snippets of information. They felt that these could provide useful summaries of information to reinforce existing knowledge or provide a tool that could be used as a checklist or conversation starter. However, content that was considered too basic could be a deterrent to engagement, with participants seeking novel information.

“It’s a bit simplified… So I have to say it doesn’t really draw me in. I think it’s just too basic”. Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

There were suggestions that infographics could provide links to more detailed information.

Overall, the infographic format led to some queries around how this type of resource might be used in practice. Views were mixed with some infographics appearing designed for online use, whilst others feeling more suited to bring printed and physically used. Where the design looked like it needed to be printed, the infographic could feel outdated. Participants noted they were unlikely to print it themselves and unsure where they would likely come across a physical copy unless circulated by schools or displayed in community venues e.g., GP Surgery.

7.3.3 Videos

Videos were appreciated for providing short content in an easy to digest way – for both parents and children. Those who found video content particularly appealing appreciated that they were a quick way of accessing information and personally more appealing than written text.

“It’s [a video] going to draw you in straight away. As soon as you see a video, it’s going to draw you in more so than just text on a page.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

“I like the pictures and video stuff…[because] I don’t want to do lots and lots and lots of reading.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Video formats were considered useful for sharing with children and were identified as ways to support discussions, particularly around potentially difficult or sensitive topics.

“So like for me when I was watching the video I immediately thought of my 11-year-old and thought, yeah, I’d like to sit [and watch it] with her [daughter].” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy.

Participants felt that videos were well suited to providing introductions to content or overviews. They reflected they were unlikely to work for detailed content and felt that it was important to keep video content simple, finding fast-paced delivery overwhelming.

7.3.4 Interactive quizzes and activities

Interactive elements such as quizzes and activities were considered useful to support parents in identifying knowledge gaps and embedding learnings.

“More like interactive I think it would encourage people to engage a bit more with it. So like if there was like a question like what would you do in this scenario or something.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Lower digital media literacy.

However, they were largely identified as useful for engaging younger children. Gamification of potentially sensitive topics was considered a good strategy for tackling issues with children – particularly younger children who were less likely to engage with written content.

“I think she’d enjoy doing that and be like a fun. She likes things that are fun and playful and you know, she doesn’t want to sit and listen to like somebody on a video moaning about like what she should and shouldn’t do. But if you make it into a game, she’s all ears. And I think like that’s more appealing for kids.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

“Doing it in a sort of gentle way rather than exposing them to anything sort of real world.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Interactive content tailored to age groups was positively received. For example, resources that utilised characters were considered well suited to engaging a younger child. Parents were less certain that interactive content such as quizzes would work for older teenagers, anticipating that they would be unlikely to want to participate in these.

7.4 Channels for delivering media literary resources

Participants expressed diverse views on the most effective channels for delivering online safety information. Schools emerged as a trusted channel for providing online safety information, while private organisations, particularly social media companies, faced scepticism. Charities were seen as trustworthy but often lacking familiarity amongst participants (who generally were only aware of very large, high-profile national charities). Views around government agencies as sources were mixed; whilst generally considered a trustworthy source, there were concerns about the levels of funding that would be allocated (with some perceiving the likely amounts as being insufficient) and potential biases.

There was an overall recognition that the current levels of awareness of the information available were insufficient and that the most important thing was how to raise awareness of these resources. There were mentions of creating advertising campaigns to help improve awareness. Campaigns could utilise multiple channels such as GP surgeries, schools, billboards and adverts on TV.

7.4.1 Schools

Schools were highlighted as having a unique role in disseminating information. The role of the school in providing communications was emphasised by participants as a trusted intermediary, able to bridge the gap between parents’ needs and additional resources. The role of the school was also cited as unique in its reach; being able to readily access and engage parents and children alike. Parents felt it was a natural progression that the school should not only include more lessons on online safety but also educate parents on what was available. There was a notable lack of consistency in school communications on online safety and other media literacy resources. Some schools were providing regular information to parents around online safety whereas others were more irregular. Others were felt to not communicate at all on relevant issues.

“If it comes from a school, I’m going to trust it.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

7.4.2 Government websites

Reactions towards the government as a potential channel for disseminating information was mixed. Overall, the government was less likely to be identified as having a role in communicating or promoting media literacy resources than were either charities or schools.

However, there was an acknowledgement that the government had the potential to reach more people if it worked on a campaign around online safety. Although there were some concerns that the campaign may not be well-funded enough to substantially increase awareness of what was available.

“But if it’s going to be linked to the government, I doubt they’re going to have the money to spend that conglomerates have.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

Participants who were more sceptical about the government being involved raised concerns around potential bias. However, there was also a sense amongst some participants that affiliation of the government could increase trust in the information shown.

“Maybe if it was a government website, maybe you might trust it a little bit more.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

7.4.3 Private Sector Organisations

The reaction to private sector organisations as a potential channel for resources was a mixture of scepticism about their motives, with pragmatism around their ability to reach people.

Participants were particularly concerned about potential bias and commercial motives regarding some private sector organisations, with reservations about the objectivity and trustworthiness of the source. This was particularly the case with social media companies. Participants questioned whether social media companies were genuinely committed to online safety or protecting their brand image. This had an impact on how much they trusted the information they received.

“But I wouldn’t really ever trust content made by like Meta, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok. I would prefer like an independent like body that wasn’t associated with them to kind of give advice really.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Higher digital media literacy.

Another view was that companies had the technological expertise and reach that could bring helpful information to those who needed it. Not only to parents themselves but also children while they were using applications. Participants who expressed this view felt that social media companies were doing the “right thing” by providing this information.

“They’re [social media companies] saying all the right things, they’re using all the right categories. I trust them. Yeah, I trust them because I think that there’s pressure on social media companies now to protect young people online.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

But there was a recognition that not enough was being done by private companies to raise awareness and that the level of current action was insufficient.

“Work with companies like Roblox or TikTok and promote it via their platform because that’s what kids are accessing…instead of making it ads that aren’t relevant to kids, make it a 10-second video about internet safety.” Parent of child aged 7-10, Lower digital media literacy.

7.4.4 Charities

Charities were perceived as trustworthy channels for information / resources. Participants appreciated their impartiality and lack of ulterior motives for providing information.

“A charity you almost feel like would give you some comfort. Not for profit, so not trying to scam you.” Parent of child aged 11-14, Lower digital media literacy.

But despite charities being viewed as trustworthy, participants struggled to name a charity that focused on online safety or provided resources on media literacy. There was very little awareness of charities and associated brands that are currently providing online resources. This highlights how further promotion and outreach is necessary to increase levels of familiarity and associated levels of trust and engagement.

“There just needs to be like a really big campaign then put out there throughout the country with all these resources because I haven’t heard of any of these.” Parent of child aged 15-17, Higher digital media literacy.

8 Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions are discussed below in relation to the 3 key research objectives this research set out to explore.

8.1 Parental media literacy needs and challenges

Media literacy skills are considered important for both parents and their children.

• Parents are unfamiliar with the term media literacy, but once prompted recognise the importance of related skills.
• Parents spontaneously think about media literacy in relation to technical digital skills. However, they agree that critical thinking skills and understanding real-life consequences of online actions is important for parents and children.

A range of factors shape parents’ confidence in their personal use of the internet and supporting their child in using the internet safely. Whilst they identify a range of online risks for children, they do not always feel equipped to manage these especially as children get older.

• Parents’ own confidence when online is influenced by familiarity of websites used/ source of online communications, familiarity with and use of online security measures, and previous experiences of scams. Parents can feel unconfident in their own technical skills, particularly when compared to the skills of their children, who have ‘grown up’ with the internet.
• Parents identify a range of potential online risks for children across a variety of platforms. Anonymity and ease of communication and data sharing online is a key worry.
• Parents express concern about the evolving nature of online risks as their child grows older, and how to navigate increased access to devices and online content alongside their child having greater freedom. Parental controls they are familiar with were not always considered appropriate for older children; instead there was a greater focus on conversations about risks.
• Parents describe using a range of parental controls to supervise their children’s online activity including physical controls, technological controls and discursive strategies. Use of these is influenced by awareness and understanding of controls, confidence in applying controls, age of child and attitudes towards the use of controls. Parents identified both proactive and reactive triggers to putting controls in place.

The ubiquitous nature and fast-moving pace of technology and the digital world creates an ongoing challenge for parents.

• Parent could feel overwhelmed when reflecting on how quickly the online world develops, highlighting the importance of keeping knowledge up to date.
• Parents seek quick and easy-to-understand information, education, and support on online safety practices for themselves and their children. This includes guides, information, live chat support, and training on potential risks, navigation strategies, and privacy and security settings for different platforms.
• There is low awareness of where this type of information and guidance can be found currently.

8.2 The perceived effectiveness of existing media literacy resources in addressing parental needs

Parents express surprise and enthusiasm at learning about existing media literacy resources. 5 key factors determine how engaging and effective parents find these resources:

• Relevance: information that is relevant to age of the child, issues of interest and platforms used.
• Depth and novelty: information that goes beyond ‘the basics’, sharing something new and a layered approach to information provision, incorporating both short overviews of information and options to access/ click through for more detail.
• Practical guidance: information that helps parents take action to support their child’s online safety including detail on the types of parental controls available, guides on how to use these, conversation starters, safety checklists, signposting for reporting and accessing more support.
• Clarity and presentation: information needs to be provided in ‘digestible’ ways to enable and encourage parents to engage with it. Dynamic design, relatable images, a professional look and positive tone are important.
• Trustworthy and credible: transparency over who is providing the resource with information about their purpose. Lack of familiarity can lead to mistrust, whilst there also needs to be trust around the objectivity of the messenger.

Resource format influences parents’ perceptions of engagement and effectiveness. They suggest offering information in multiple formats to accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences among parents and children.

• Website formats are considered an effective way to provide comprehensive information in one place. Ability to filter by age, topic and platform is important in helping users tailor content to their needs (increasing engagement) and to support navigation.
• Infographics are considered an effective format for delivering short and concise information but must remain focussed; text must be short, potentially in bullet point format.
• Videos are considered an effective way to provide short content in an easy to digest way for both parents and children. Videos are well suited to providing introductions to content or overviews with suggestions that they could be shared with children for useful conversation starters.
• Interactive quizzes and activities are identified as a useful format for supporting parents in identifying knowledge gaps and embedding learnings but are largely considered well suited to engaging younger children.

Channels for delivering online safety information need to feel relevance and trustworthy.

• Schools are favoured as a trusted way to promote and share online safety information.
• Charities are also considered a trusted source but often lack visibility.
• Whilst the government was typically trusted there were some concerns regarding availability of funds to carry out this role and queries around whether information might be biased.
• Information provision via private organisations, particularly social media companies is met with scepticism with strong concerns around impartiality.

8.3 Potential gaps in provision and refinements to existing resources

The key gap for parents regarding the provision of resources to support media literacy is the lack of awareness and knowledge of existing resources.

• Participants were pleased and relieved to learn that resources are available and expressed a desire to know more about them, highlighting the need for awareness-raising to overcome a core barrier to engagement.
• The research suggests that schools are perceived to be ideally placed to help raise awareness and could play a critical role in the promotion of resources.

There is strong appeal for a comprehensive ‘hub’ of information for supporting parents in finding information that is relevant to their needs.

• Being able to filter by age, topic and platform will be crucial to parents being able to quickly find what they need.

Future information provision should consider:

• A range of formats is likely to help engage a broad range of parents and children. This supports parents in engaging with formats they personally find appealing, and identifying formats they believe will support them in engaging their child in online safety.
• For information to resonate, it must be relevant to the child’s age, topic, and platform. It should also provide new insights and/or easy access to more detailed information if desired.
• Actionable content will also be crucial, helping parents to feel confident and comfortable in taking practical actions to helping their child use the internet safely.
• The presentation of information will need to be carefully considered, with clear presentation, layout and easy to navigate content.
• Trustworthy and credible sources are essential for engaging parents who are keen to understand the source and purpose of the information provided.

8.4 Considerations for future research

This research has identified key challenges in parents’ engagement with media literacy resources. To build upon these findings and enhance future uptake and engagement with resources, the following research areas should be considered:

• Participatory research with children and young people to capture their perspectives on online risks, effective safety strategies, and the parental role in fostering digital wellbeing. This will help to ensure that future media literacy initiatives are grounded in the lived experiences of young people.
• Evaluations of media literacy interventions to assess the impact of online media literacy resources on parental knowledge, skills, and confidence in supporting their children’s online safety. These should be proportionate to the scale of the intervention and should include measures of usage/engagement and broader awareness of the intervention amongst target groups of parents (not only the current users of the resources).
• User testing of resources to enhance usability and relevance. Implement user testing protocols with parents to gather detailed feedback on the usability, clarity and relevance of specific media literacy resources. This iterative process will ensure resources are user-friendly, meet the needs of the target audience, and encourage continued use. The focus should be on identifying and addressing any barriers to engagement.
• Case studies around trigger points to inform the targeting of awareness-raising activity and tailoring of resource content. This research should explore the motivations, decision-making processes, and the types of resources that parents find most helpful in response to these triggers. This understanding can inform targeted resource delivery and promotion strategies to ensure parents receive the right support at the right time.

9 Annex

9.1 Sample breakdown

The main sampling criterion for the focus groups was digital media literacy and the age of their eldest child. The depth interviews sought to include those who had reduced goods and services. The criterion was chosen on the basis that this may influence experiences and perceptions of parental media literacy and their experience of technology overall.

Table 9.1 Sample breakdown

Demographic		Total focus group sample	Total interview sample	Total combined sample
Gender	Male	45	4	49
	Female	55	6	61
Age	30-39	36	3	39
	40-49	43	4	47
	55+	5	2	7
Age of oldest child	7-10	35	5	40
	11-14	33	3	38
	15-17	36	2	38
SEG	ABC1	72	7	79
	C2DE	34	3	37
Urban/rural	Urban	34	3	37
	Sub-urban	45	7	52
	Rural	21	0	21
Ethnicity	Non ethnic minority	59	4	63
	Ethnic minority	41	6	47
Education	Below degree level	57	6	63
	Degree or above	43	4	47
Single parent	Single parent	23	3	26
	Not single parent	77	7	84
Level of media digital literacy	High	21	5	26
	Medium	46	2	48
	Low	32	3	35
Total participants		100	10	110

9.2 Research Materials

The research materials for this project are shown below.

9.2.1 Recruitment screener

Good morning / afternoon / evening.

My name is ……………… and I am contacting you from Criteria on behalf of Ipsos, the research organisation.

Ipsos is an independent research organisation, carrying out this research on behalf of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, otherwise known as DSIT. They are interested in how comfortable and confident parents feel when using the internet and helping their children use the internet. This research will feed into DSIT’s thinking on resources available to parents. You do not need to do anything to prepare for taking part, we are just interested in your views.

We are looking for people to take part in a group discussion / research interview and people who take part will receive a financial incentive to thank them for their time.

You have the right to withdraw your consent to process the information you provide or object to our processing of your information. The research activity and this interview will be conducted in accordance with the Market Research Society Code of Conduct, and the information you provide will be treated in accordance with data protection law.

To ensure we include a range of people in the research we’d like to ask a few questions. As part of this I will need to ask specific questions about your ethnicity and health. This information will only be collected with your explicit consent and is being collected to ensure that the research includes people from different backgrounds.

Q0. Are you happy to continue on this basis?

SINGLE CODE ONLY

Yes	1	CONTINUE
No	2	THANK AND CLOSE

Screening questions

RESEARCH EXCLUSIONS:

Q1A. Do you work in any of the following areas, either in a paid or unpaid capacity?

SINGLE CODE ONLY

Journalism/ the media	1	THANK AND CLOSE
Public relations (PR)	2	THANK AND CLOSE
Market Research	3	THANK AND CLOSE
Central or local government	4	THANK AND CLOSE
A charity or organisation which focuses on digital safety	5	THANK AND CLOSE
Primary or Secondary school teaching	6	THANK AND CLOSE
No, none of these	7	CONTINUE TO Q1B
Don’t know	8	CONTINUE TO Q1B

Q1B. How long ago did you last attend a market research group discussion/depth interview?

SINGLE CODE ONLY

In the last 12 months	1	THANK AND close
More than 2 years ago	2	ASK Q1C
Never	3	CONTINUE TO Q1D

Q1C. What was each of those market research studies about?

WRITE IN:

IF ON A SIMILAR SUBJECT AS THIS SURVEY, CLOSE INTERVIEW

Q1D. If you are identified as having participated in other market research studies for Ipsos, or another research company, in the last 12 months during or following the session, or if any of the information you have provided is identified as being inaccurate, you may not receive monies for participating.

Please confirm you understand and are happy to proceed on that basis?

No	1	THANK AND CLOSE
Yes	2	CONTINUE TO Q2A

PARENT EXCLUSIONS:

Q2A. How many children aged under 18 currently live in your household?

Please only reference the children to which you are a parent or guardian

SINGLE CODE ONLY

0	CLOSE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9+
Prefer not to say	CLOSE

Q2B. How old is your eldest child?

Please only reference the children to which you are a parent or guardian

SINGLE CODE ONLY

0	CLOSE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9+
Prefer not to say	CLOSE

MEDIA LITERACY STRATIFICATION

OVERALL CONFIDENCE

Q3A. Which of the following statements best describes how confident you feel when going online?

SINGLE CODE

I feel very confident in my ability to do almost anything online. For example, installing new computer programmes or exploring new software. People tend to come to me for help with anything related to technology.	1	FOR MONITORING ONLY
I am confident in my online ability, yet there is more that I could learn to get better. I use my smartphone regularly and know how to download apps and upload images and video with ease. I sometimes need help for more complicated tasks.	2	FOR MONITORING ONLY
I am confident doing activities online that I am familiar with. I use my smartphone for calling, texting, using the camera or occasionally using social media. I wouldn’t be too sure what to do if something went wrong.	3	FOR MONITORING ONLY
There are only a few activities I can perform by myself online, like emailing or simple online browsing. The online world is not central to my life.	4	FOR MONITORING ONLY
I do not know how to use a computer and am apprehensive about using one. I would need help to know what to do.	5	FOR MONITORING ONLY

DIGITAL GOODS AND SERVICES

Q3B. Which of the following, if any, do you and your children have access to in your household?

If you have a device but your child is unable to regularly use this device, please code no (e.g., if the device is provided by your work and is not permitted for personal use or is locked for certain processes not linked to the company)

SINGLE CODE

Broadband	A smart phone	At least 3GB of mobile data per month	Laptop or tablet or PC	Headphones	A Smart TV
1	1	1	1	1	1
2	2	2	2	2	2

Q3C. ASK IF THEY HAVE BROADBAND

In general, can all the members of your household be on the internet at the same time without issues?

SINGLE CODE

Yes	1
No	2
Don’t know	3

DEPTHS 1-4: ALL TO CODE ‘NO’ AT LEAST ONCE AT Q3B OR CODE NO AT Q3C (E.G IF THEY DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THEM THEY QUALITY FOR THE DEPTHS)

DEPTHS 5-10: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

ALL GROUPS: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

FUNCTIONAL SKILLS – USE FOR CALCULATION

Q3D How confident, if at all, do you personally feel in each of the following?

SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

	Using and changing settings on your phone (e.g., changing preferences on new devices as well as current devices when systems and settings are updated)	Using new Apps (e.g., ability to use a new app you have never seen & that may not be user friendly)	Browsing the internet safely (e.g., visiting websites you may not regularly visit without any risk to your device)	Creating an email account and sending emails (including creating profession, grammatically correct correspondence)	Using Zoom / Teams / Google Classrooms (e.g., including creating meetings, sharing your screen, using the chat function, visiting / creating breakout rooms, changing / blurring your background)	Buying items online safely (e.g., visiting websites you may not visit regularly, securely providing payment details and keeping personal/ payment details secure)
Very confident	1	1	1	1	1	1
Fairly confident	2	2	2	2	2	2
Not very confident	3	3	3	3	3	3
Not at all confident	4	4	4	4	4	4

SCORE - ADD UP ALL ANSWER NUMBERS

CRITICAL SKILLS – USE FOR CALCULATION

Q3E How confident, if at all, do you personally feel in each of the following?

SINGLE CODE PER STATEMENT

	Creating and using secure passwords (including keeping track of any compromised passwords – these are sometimes flagged by your devices e.g., on Apple devices)	Monitoring banking activity online (e.g., checking money entering and exiting your account, speaking to you bank provider about any discrepancies)	Knowing how to apply parental controls (including time limits, websites restrictions, security)	Identifying risks online (scams, unsafe links, catfishers, groomers	Identifying information online that is false or inaccurate (e.g., via social media, email mail outs, community groups etc.)	Understanding what information about me is available online (e.g., via data you have made available publicly (social media etc.), data which is automatically made public (e.g., business information, electoral roles etc.) or other data (e.g., profiles on business websites etc.)
Very confident	1	1	1	1	1	1
Fairly confident	2	2	2	2	2	2
Not very confident	3	3	3	3	3	3
Not at all confident	4	4	4	4	4	4

SCORE* - ADD UP ALL ANSWER NUMBERS

See overleaf for scoring…

SCORING:

Count up the responses from critical and functional skills and put their answers into the table below.

Functional Skills score
Critical Skills score
TOTAL score

Use the table below to ascertain whether the participant has a LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH score

SCORE	Functional Skills	Critical skills	Overall proxy MDLS	HOW TO CODE
LOW	16-24	20-24	36-48	Does not meet proxy MDLS
MEDIUM	8-15	11-19	18-35	Does not meet proxy MDLS
HIGH	6-7	6-10	12-17	Meets proxy MDLS

GROUPS 1, 8 * 9: ALL TO CODE ‘MEETS PROXY MDLS’. ALL TO HAVE A HIGH SCORE.

GROUPS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15: ALL TO CODE ‘DOES NOT MEET PROXY MDLS’. PLEASE INCLUDE A MIX OF THOSE WHO HAVE A LOW SCORE AND THOSE WHO HAVE A MEDIUM SCORE.

DEPTHS 1-4: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

DEPTHS 5-7: ALL TO CODE ‘MEETS PROXY MDLS’ AND HAVE A HIGH SCORE.

DEPTHS 8-10: ALL TO CODE ‘DOES NOT MEET PROXY MDLS’ AND HAVE A LOW SCORE.

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Q4. How old were you on your last birthday?

WRITE IN & CODE EXACT AGE

Exact Age
18-24	1	RECORD INFORMATION ONLY
25-44	2	RECORD INFORMATION ONLY
45-59	3	RECORD INFORMATION ONLY
60+	4	RECORD INFORMATION ONLY

Q5. How would you describe your gender?

SINGLE CODE

Man	1
Woman	2
Non-Binary	3
My gender is not listed	4
Prefer not to say	5

ALL GROUPS: 2-3 X TO CODE MAN AND 2-3 X WOMAN

DEPTHS 1-10: AT LEAST 3 X MAN AND AT LEAST 3 X WOMAN

Q6. How would you describe your ethnicity?

SINGLE CODE ONLY

White British (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British)	1
White and Black Caribbean	2
White and Black African	3
White and Asian	4
Other Mixed / Multiple ethnic background. Please specify:_____	5
Indian	6
Pakistani	7
Bangladeshi	8
Chinese	9
Other Asian background Please specify_____	10
Black African	11
Black Caribbean	12
Other Black / African / Caribbean background. Please specify:_____	13
Non-British European Please specify:_____	14
Other. Please specify:_____	15

ALL GROUPS: PLEASE INCLUDE AT LEAST 2 X PARTICIPANS FROM AN ETHNIC MINORITY BACKGROUND

Q7. Please can you tell me which, if any, is the highest educational or professional qualification you have obtained.

SINGLE CODE

GCSE / O-level / CSE	1	MONITORING ONLY
Vocational qualifications	2	MONITORING ONLY
A-Level or equivalent	3	MONITORING ONLY
Bachelor Degree or equivalent	4	MONITORING ONLY
Masters / PhD or equivalent	5	MONITORING ONLY
Other	6	MONITORING ONLY
No formal qualifications	7	MONITORING ONLY
Still studying	8	MONITORING ONLY
Don’t know	9	MONITORING ONLY
Prefer not to say	10	MONITORING ONLY

MONITORING ONLY

Q8A. What is your current employment status?

SINGLE CODE ONLY

In full-time employment	1	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
In part-time employment	2	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
Currently not in paid employment	3	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
In full-time education/studying	4	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
Look after the home / children	5	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
Carer	6	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B
Retired	7	MONITORING ONLY GO TO Q8B

MONITORING ONLY

GO TO Q8B

Q8B. And could you tell me what it is you do for a living?

Position/rank/grade	GO TO Q8C
Industry/type of company	GO TO Q8C

Q8C. And could you tell me what the chief income earner in your household does for a living (if not yourself)?

Position/rank/grade		ALL PARTICIPANTS: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Industry/type of company		ALL PARTICIPANTS: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Number in charge of		ALL PARTICIPANTS: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Social Grade		ALL PARTICIPANTS: RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Q9. And thinking about the area where you currently live, which of the following best describes this area?

SINGLE CODE

Rural	1
Semi-urban/suburban	2
Urban	3

Spread of at least 2 per area group for online focus groups only. At least 20 participants overall living in rural areas.

Q10. Would you describe yourself as a single parent?

SINGLE CODE

Yes	1	MONITORING ONLY
No	2	MONITORING ONLY
Prefer not to say	3	MONITORING ONLY

Q11. Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more?

Please consider conditions that always affect you and those that flare up from time to time. These may include, for example, sensory conditions, developmental conditions or learning impairments.

Yes	1 GO TO Q12	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
No	2	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Prefer not to say	3	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Q12. Does your condition or illness reduce your ability to carry-out day-to-day activities?

SINGLE CODE

Yes, a lot	1	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Yes, a little	2	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Not at all	3	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Prefer not to say	4	RECORD FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Q13. Ipsos is committed to making sure our research is inclusive for all, including for people with specific accessibility needs and requirements. We want to ensure that people take part in the conversation in ways that work best for them. We know that many people might need us to make some changes to the way we carry out the discussion to make it easier for them to take part – whether carrying out the discussion in a different way giving you more information to help you prepare in advance, involving an interpreter if you need one to enable you to speak to us more easily.

Ipsos will make every reasonable effort to ensure that you can take part, so please let us know if there is anything we can do to make this easier for you.

PLEASE WRITE IN AND INFORM OFFICE:

Q14. This research will involve talking about how confident and comfortable you feel in your own use of technology and the internet and supporting your child/ children in using these safely.

Are you comfortable discussing this in a group setting?

Yes	1
No	2	OFFER DEPTH INTERVIEW OR CLOSE

Q15. ASK THOSE TAKING PART IN AN ONLINE GROUP ONLY:

This group discussion/ interview will take place on an online platform called Zoom/ MS Teams. You will be required to take part on a desktop/laptop/tablet computer with a working microphone and camera. A smartphone will not be suitable. You will need a reliable internet connection to take part.

Are you happy to take part on this basis?

Yes	1
No	X	THANK AND CLOSE (OR OFFER FACE TO FACE )

OVERALL SAMPLE TABLES

Please note child age is determined by age of eldest child in household.

Online groups

Group 1 Meets proxy MDLS Child age 7-10 years	Group 2 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 11-14 years	Group 3 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 15-17 years	Group 4 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 7-10 years	Group 5 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 11-14 years
Group 6 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 15-17 years	Group 7 Does not meet proxy MDLS Child age 7-10 years	Group 8 Meets proxy MDLS Child age 11-14 years	Group 9 Meets proxy MDLS Child age 15-17 years

Depth interviews (telephone or MS Teams)

Depths
At least 4 who say ‘no’ to one of the digital goods at Q3B or say no at Q3C.
At least 4 who do not meet proxy MDLS
At least 2 who do meet proxy MDLS

9.2.2 Discussion guide

The discussion guide was used for both the focus groups and the depth interviews.

1. Introduction - 6-6.05pm - 5 minutes

• This section is to ensure informed consent is gained, explain the purpose of the research and to warm participants up to taking part in the research.
• Please note that all participants have been provided with an information sheet and privacy policy outlining how their data will be used and their rights. Please confirm receipt of this.

Introduction

• Moderator to introduce self, any tech support (who will be on hand for first 15 minutes) and any observers/note takers.
• I work for an organisation called Ipsos, a global independent research organisation.
• We are carrying out this research on behalf of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). DSIT is the government department responsible for helping ensure that new and existing technologies are safely developed and deployed across the UK and drive forward a modern digital government for the benefit of its citizens.
• We have been asked by DSIT to carry out a research project exploring how confident and comfortable parents feel when using the internet and helping their children using the internet.
• DSIT are interested to hear your thoughts and views which will help them understand how parents can be better supported.

Confidentiality and MRS guidelines:

• Explain that the session will be audio recorded, this will be securely held and deleted at the end of the research.
• Explain that personal information, e.g. full name, email etc. will not be shared with DSIT.
• Written report - may use quotes but participants will remain anonymous.
• Do you have any questions about the research?
• Can I check that you are happy to participate and for me to begin recording this session? [confirm consent]

Housekeeping:

• Important that everyone gets a chance to speak.
• Please can everyone turn their mobile phones on silent and turn off any additional screens not needed for this discussion.
• There will be a lot to cover so we may need to move people on and to allow others to speak. This is not personal, but only to ensure we fit everything and everyone in.
• Please try not to talk over each other if possible.
• Disagreements are fine but please respect each other’s opinions.
• During introductions please just use first name.
• We are going to mention safety online. Some of you may have had some experiences. You don’t need to tell us anything you don’t want us to and if you need a break feel free to take one. We will provide some resources at the end of this conversation.
• We are going to discuss some guidance and advice that would be helpful for parents. We are going to show you some materials in this session to get your feedback. People may have different parenting styles and we ask that everyone keeps an open-mind and says respectful.

We will start with a quick icebreaker / participant introduction.

• What your name is
• Tell us a little bit about your family, who do you live with, how many children you have?

One online activity you enjoy as a family

2. Parents’ Online experiences - 6.05-6.25pm - 20 minutes

• Exploring general attitudes parents have to use the internet and how comfortable they feel?
• Understand the role of the internet in their day-to-day life

We would like to begin by talking about how you use the internet, if you do.

What are the main activities you use the internet for? [MODERATOR MAKE A NOTE OF THESE IN STIMULUS SLIDE OR ON FLIP CHART IF F2F]

• Probe: Online shopping? Banking? Communicating with others? News?
• Specific platforms, apps, websites?
• What devices?

We know that people have different levels of confidence when using the internet. On a scale of 1-10, how confident do you feel using the internet safely on a day-to day basis?[MODERATOR - ASK PARTICIPANTS TO GIVE THEMSELVES A NUMBER INDIVIDUALLY BEFORE SHARING/DISCUSSING WITH THE GROUP]

• What number did you put?
• What makes you say that?
• Has this changed overtime?

What makes you feel confident when you are online?

• Probe: What about when using new websites? New Apps?

What makes you feel less confident when you are online?

• Probe: How often you visit the site?/adverts/spam?
• What do you do when you are not confident about doing something?

Looking at the list of activities that we put together earlier…[SHOW POWERPOINT SLIDE/FLIP CHART FROM EARLIER]

To what extent do you feel confident using the internet to do these?

• What makes you feel more or less confident when doing this?
• Which do you feel more confident doing?
• Which do you feel less confident doing?
• How has your confidence changed over time?

[IF NOT ALREADY MENTIONED]What makes you feel confident or not when…?

• Creating and using secure passwords
• Monitoring bank activities
• Applying parental controls
• Identifying risks online like scams
• Identifying information online that is false or inaccurate
• Sharing personal information online

What would help you feel more confident online?

• Probe: Training? Warnings? Guides?

Who would you speak to or where would you look if you wanted more information about using the internet?

• Probe: Friends, family, websites, teachers?

Have you heard of any organisations that support people in building their online confidence? This could include helping people to build their digital skills or being safer online.

• If yes: Which ones? What do you know about what they offer? What did you think about what they offer?
• Probe: What about online safety? Or digital skills?
• Who are these aimed at? Are they aimed at people like you? Why/why not?

When you hear the term “media literacy” what does that mean to you?

• Get unprompted responses and then probe with definition: Media literacy is about being able to critically evaluate information found online, understand that online actions have real-world consequences, contribute to a respectful online environment and help children navigate digital content safely.
• PROBE: What skills or knowledge are an important part of being “media literate”?
• How important do you think it is for parents today and why?

3. Children’s online presence - 6.25-6.45pm - 20 minutes

Explore awareness and rules around their child’s online presence

We’ve talked about your personal internet use and confidence. Next, I’d like to shift our focus to your children’s online activities. What are the main activities your child/children use the internet for, if they do?

• Probe: At school? With their friends? Video games
• What types of devices do they use?
• How often do they use the internet?

What social media, if any, does your child/children use?

• Probe: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook?
• Which do they engage with the most?

Thinking more about children being online…How confident do you think parents are in helping their child to use the internet in a safe and responsible way?

• What makes parents feel more confident or less confident?
• Are there groups of parents do you think are more or less confident?
• How confident do you feel?

How might parents monitor their child’s online activities?

• Probe: checking history
• How easy do you think it is to know the different ways to monitor children’s online activities?
• What are the advantages/disadvantages of doing this?
• Are there any barriers to monitoring?

Which tools, if any, might parents use to control what their child sees online?

• Probe if necessary: Child profiles? WIFI settings? Pin numbers? Monitoring apps?
• What are the advantages/disadvantages to using those tools?
• Are there any barriers to use tools?

What types of issues are you aware of when it comes to children being online?

• Probe if necessary: Scams, inappropriate content, stranger contact, cyber-bullying, over-sharing information, false or inaccurate information
• How concerned are you about these? PROBE FOR DETAILS OF CONCERNS
• DO you think other parents have similar/other concerns? PROBE FOR ANY FURTHER ISSUES AND HOW THEY FEEL THEY COMPARE

How prepared do you feel in dealing with these potential issues [LIST PROBES ABOVE IF HELPFUL]? What about other parents that you know?

• What makes you say that?
• What makes people feel more prepared? Or less prepared?

What would help make you feel more confident in keeping your child safe online? What about other parents you might know?

• Probe: Training? Warnings? Guides?
• Do you speak to your children about online safety? PROBE: How often?

Who would you speak to or where would you look if you want more information about children using the internet?

• Probe: Friends, family, websites, teachers?
• IF Search engine/Google - what search terms/words would you use?
• PROBE FOR REASONS AND WHETHER WOULD VARY DEPENDING ON THE ISSUE

Have you heard of any organisations that support parents in learning more about how to help their child use the internet safely?

• If yes: Which ones? What do you know about what they offer? What did you think about what they offer?
• Who are these aimed at? Are they aimed at people like you? Why/why not?

Which organisations would you expect to support parents?

Existing awareness of tools or information available - 6.45-6.55pm - 10 minutes

• Exploring existing awareness of organisations providing online safety resources

Understand when parents might look for this information

I’d now like to spend some time thinking about the types of resources that are available to support parents in feeling more confident in supporting their child to use the internet in a safe and responsible way…

What types of information do you think would be helpful for parents?

• What types of topics? What types of skills?
• Where/ how should this be provided?
• Who should provide this? Probe: Schools, government, non-profit, tech companies, charities

When might it be useful for parents to be able to access this type of information?

• Are there particular times when you would have found information helpful? What were these?
  • Specific ages/ school year groups?
  • Are there specific milestones?
  • Changes to access to technology e.g. getting a phone?
  • When something comes up as a query/ concern?
  • PROBE FOR PREVIOUS SITUATIONS/TRIGGER POINTS

How likely do you think you would be to look for this type of information?

What might make doing this difficult?

What might encourage or motivate parents to look for such information?

What would motivate you?

BREAK (10 mins) 6.55-7.05pm

5. Perceptions of tools available and any gaps. - 7.05-7.50 - 45 mins

• Explore awareness and perceptions of organisations providing online safety resources

Understand if there are any gaps in the provision

WE’D LIKE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON SOME POTENTIAL TYPES OF RESOURCES, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN’T USE THEM BEFORE REFER TO SEPARATE RESOURCE GUIDANCE:

• SHOW 2 X IN-DEPTH SITE -Parentzone OR Internet Matters OR Childnet (c.20 mins)
• THEN SHOW 2-3 SHORT STAY SITES (Meta, Kidadl, Lego, FOSI, UK Safer Internet Centre, Shout Out UK, Virgin Media Find the Right Words, TikTok in Two Ticks)

FOR EACH RESOURCE REFER TO QUESTIONS/PROMPTS IN SEPARATE RESOURCE GUIDANCE; GENERAL PROBES:

• What are your initial thoughts?
• How helpful/ unhelpful does this look to you?
  • What do you think you/ parents would learn from this?
• Who does it feel aimed at?
  • To what extent does it feel aimed at parents like you?
  • Age of child?
  • When might it be useful?
• What do you think about the content? How useful would you find this?
  • PROBE FOR EXTENT THEY WOULD ENGAGE AND WHY/WHY NOT
• What do you think about the format? Advantages / disadvantages of the format?
• How well do you think the format matches the issue it is covering? [MODERATOR: REFLECT ON ISSUES COVERED EARLIER]
• What about the site itself/organisation hosting this content?
  • Do they feel an appropriate organisation?
  • Is this an organisation you would trust? Would you be likely to seek out information from them?
• What would you change (if anything)/ how could it be improved?

OVERALL REACTIONS

Which of these resources do you think you would find most helpful or least helpful?

• What makes you say that?
• How would you rank all of them in terms of most / least helpful?

How do you think parents would become aware of these types of resources?

• Who could tell parents about these?
• Where could information about these be provided?
• What might encourage parents to look at these?

What are your views on the different ways that the information is provided?

• What is your preference?
• What impact would this have on how likely you would be to look at the information?

What are your views on who is providing the information?

To what extent does it matter where the information comes from?

Unmet needs and challenges - 7.50-7.55pm - 5 minutes

Summarise feelings overall and reintroduce media literacy

Beyond the available resources we explored with you today, what types of support would you like to see for parents to support their child online?

Are there particular groups you are concerned about?

Now we’ve looked at some information available to parents, what do you think are the skills parents need to help keep their children safe online?

If multiple skills – which do you think is most important?

Thinking about all we’ve talked about today. How would you describe media literacy to a friend?

How easy or difficult was that?

6. Wrap up - 7.55-8pm - 5 minutes

• Gather any final thoughts if they could feed back to DSIT one thing from what they’ve discussed today.
• Sign-post to organisations available

Thank participants

If you have any questions or need to get in contact with Ipsos about this research, please contact Ipsos. Details for how to contact Ipsos will be on the information sheet about this research.

9.2.3 Stimulus materials

During the discussions we showed the participants various media literacy resources aimed at parents. The selection of resources is detailed in the table below including examples of key questions across the resources. Follow-up questions on specific sections of each resource are not included here.

Table 9.2: Resources tested

Name of resource
Parentzone
Internet Matters
Childnet
Meta
Kidadl
Lego
Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
UK Safer Internet Centre
Shout out UK
Virgin Media Find the Right Words
TikTok in Two Ticks

Key questions

Have you heard of [name of resource]?

Who do you think they are?

Sort of site would you visit?

Do you trust this information?

When might you find it useful?

Which aspects are most useful/engaging?

Broad response to content and format – type of thing would read?

How relatable/practical are the suggested actions?

Would they engage with this content and take away any learning? Would they come back to this info?

Thoughts/ feedback on this approach?

Our standards and accreditations

Ipsos’ standards and accreditations provide our clients with the peace of mind that they can always depend on us to deliver reliable, sustainable findings. Our focus on quality and continuous improvement means we have embedded a “right first time” approach throughout our organisation.

ISO 20252

This is the international specific standard for market, opinion and social research, including insights and data analytics. Ipsos UK was the first company in the world to gain this accreditation.

Market Research Society (MRS) Company Partnership

By being an MRS Company Partner, Ipsos UK endorse and support the core MRS brand values of professionalism, research excellence and business effectiveness, and commit to comply with the MRS Code of Conduct throughout the organisation & we were the first company to sign our organisation up to the requirements & self-regulation of the MRS Code; more than 350 companies have followed our lead.

ISO 9001

International general company standard with a focus on continual improvement through quality management systems. In 1994 we became one of the early adopters of the ISO 9001 business standard.

ISO 27001

International standard for information security designed to ensure the selection of adequate and proportionate security controls. Ipsos UK was the first research company in the UK to be awarded this in August 2008.

The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)

and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)

Ipsos UK is required to comply with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). These cover the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy.

HMG Cyber Essentials

Cyber Essentials defines a set of controls which, when properly implemented, provide organisations with basic protection from the most prevalent forms of threat coming from the internet. This is a government-backed, key deliverable of the UK’s National Cyber Security Programme. Ipsos UK was assessed and validated for certification in 2016.

Fair Data

Ipsos UK is signed up as a “Fair Data” company by agreeing to adhere to twelve core principles. The principles support and complement other standards such as ISOs, and the requirements of data protection legislation.

For more information

3 Thomas More Square London E1W 1YW t: +44 (0)20 3059 5000 http://twitter.com/IpsosUK

About Ipsos Public Affairs

Ipsos Public Affairs works closely with national governments, local public services and the not-for-profit sector. Its c.200 research staff focus on public service and policy issues. Each has expertise in a particular part of the public sector, ensuring we have a detailed understanding of specific sectors and policy challenges. Combined with our methods and communications expertise, this helps ensure that our research makes a difference for decision makers and communities.

Ipsos Public Affairs works closely with national governments, local public services and the not-for-profit sector. Its c.200 research staff focus on public service and policy issues. Each has expertise in a particular part of the public sector, ensuring we have a detailed understanding of specific sectors and policy challenges. Combined with our methods and communications expertise, this helps ensure that our research makes a difference for decision makers and communities.

1. Participants were shown the following definition provided by DSIT: Media literacy is about being able to critically evaluate information found online, understand that online actions have real-world consequences, contribute to a respectful online environment and help children navigate digital content safely ↩

2. MDLS development ↩

3. MDLS Framework ↩

4. Ibid ↩

5. One in three internet users fail to question misinformation ↩