J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 DOI 10.1007/s10826-017-0773-x ORIGINAL PAPER The Role of Family and Parental Characteristics in the Scope of Social Encounters of Children in Homeschooling Oz Guterman1 Ari Neuman2 ● Published online: 11 May 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 Abstract Homeschooling, a phenomenon that is increasingly widespread in the Western world, raises questions regarding the ability to supply children in this framework with adequate social encounters. Despite evidence regarding the importance of these encounters for children in homeschooling, there is insufficient data concerning the sources of differences between homeschooling families in the scope of these social encounters. The present study examined the relationships between a child’s social encounters and socioeconomic aspects of the family, parental personalities, and the way homeschooling is practiced. One hundred and forty parents who homeschooled their children completed questionnaires about themselves, their families, and their children, as well as the social interactions of their children. The findings indicate that parental personalities and the way homeschooling is practiced correlated significantly with the social encounters of homeschooled children. Parents’ conscientiousness was associated with a greater number of social encounters and more structure in the homeschooling. This article presents possible explanations for these findings, theoretical implications of the findings and possibilities for further research. * Ari Neuman neumanari@gmail.com Oz Guterman ozgute13@gmail.com 1 Department of Human Resources, Western Galilee College, Akko, Israel 2 Management in Education System Division, Department of Education, Western Galilee College, Akko, Israel Keywords Homeschooling Home education Social encounters Socioeconomic status Parental personalities ● ● ● ● Introduction In recent years, there has been a considerable expansion in the phenomenon of home education. This expansion is significant in many Western countries but it is particularly noticeable in the United States, the leader in the number and percentage of learners in home schooling (Kunzman and Gaither 2013). In Israel the practice is still relatively limited (about 600 families), but the number of families that homeschool has also grown significantly in the past two decades (Guterman and Neuman 2016a, 2016b). It is easy to think of homeschooling as a recent phenomenon, but in fact, it is a return to a much older model of schooling than the one we are familiar with today (Davis 2011). The establishment of the state as a central, responsible body that administers and controls the process of children’s learning and education is in fact a relatively new phenomenon in the history of humanity, just a few 100 years old. In fact, when the state began to obligate parents to send their children to school, there was significant opposition on the part of the parents (Provasnik 2006). From this point of view, homeschooling represents a return to a much older model of education. However, the situation today is clearly very different from the situation that existed before formal schools became so accepted. In the past, the community in which the child grew up was the sole basis for the social world of the child and family. Holiday celebrations took place in the community and social relationships were created there. In the J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 community, children learned about the traditions of the group to which they belonged. Today, the school has taken on a significant part of this role. Children learn about holidays and traditions in school; they are taught there about the history of their country and their people. Schools hold ceremonies for the children and even for families, schools arrange field trips for the children, and so on. In effect, most of children’s social relationships are formed in school, and even relationships between parents are formed at school in some cases (Greenfield and Cocking 2014; Wentzel and Looney 2007). When these data regarding the social importance of school is taken into account, it is easy to understand the many fears that are raised regarding the influence of home education on children’s social relationships (Medlin 2000). A number of studies regarding the social encounters of homeschooled children have been conducted. Ray (1994) surveyed 1485 children in homeschooling to get a picture of their social lives. He found that they were involved in a wide variety of activities with a diverse group of people, from friends in their peer group to adults outside their families. On average, the children spent 12 h a week with children who were not their siblings. Sixty percent of them were regularly involved in sports groups, 82% in Sunday school, 48% in music classes, and 93% in recreational activities outside the family. In addition, 45 percent of the children participated in academic lessons with other children outside the home. In further research, Ray (1997, 1999) found that on the average, children in home schooling were involved in 5.2 activities outside the home per week, and 98% of them were involved in two activities or more. These activities included Scouts, dance lessons, sports groups, and volunteer activities. Nelsen (1998, p. 35) claimed that: “children in homeschooling are exposed more frequently to a wider variety of people and situations than children in school, whose exposure is limited to 25–35 people of their own age and socioeconomic background.” Regarding the type of social relationships formed by children in homeschooling, Chatham-Carpenter (1994) found that children in homeschooling were in contact with 49 different people in the span of a month, while children in school were in contact with 56 different people. However, there were significant differences in the quality of the encounters. The homeschooled children met with people of a greater variety of ages, while the children in school met with a higher percentage of people from their peer group. In both groups, there was the same number of close friends (3–5), despite the fact that their social networks appear somewhat different (in terms of the variety of ages). Guterman and Neuma (2016a, b) examined the relationships between the scope of social encounters of homeschooled children and emotional and behavioral problems regarding internalization and externalization. In the 2783 research, a significant negative relationship was apparent between the scope of social encounters that homeschooled children had with other children and internalization and externalization problems; that is, as the scope of social encounters was greater, the level of internalization and externalization problems was lower. It appears that parents understand the importance of social encounters for homeschooled children intuitively, since a number of researchers have shown that the socialization of children in homeschooling is important to their parents. For example, Medlin (2013), who summarized numerous studies on the social context of children in homeschooling, claimed that homeschooling parents expect that their children will respect and get along with people of different backgrounds, provide their children with a variety of social opportunities outside the family, and believe that their children’s social skills are as good as those of other children. In their research for the National Foundation for Educational Research (in England), Atkinson et al. (2007) found that parents recognized the importance of providing children with opportunities for socialization and used diverse sources of support to fulfill this need. Parents mentioned family and friends, local homeschooling groups, religious and community organizations, sports programs and the Internet as sources of social relationships for their children. Gathercole (2007) concluded that parents in home education tended to encourage their children to participate in a variety of activities and actively search out these opportunities for them. Rothermel (2002, 2011), who studied 100 homeschooling families in England, also reported that socialization was very important to parents. The evidence for this was the effort that parents made to ensure that their children wouldn’t suffer as a result of less exposure to their peer group compared to children who attended school. A number of families described themselves as making efforts to form friendships with other families. The parents thought that this behavior was rational; since their children were not in school, they were afraid that others wouldn’t always think to invite their children to social events. Similar findings were noted in the research of Neuman (2003) and Neuman and Aviram (2003, 2008) regarding the importance of children’s social relationships for parents of homeschooled children and the many efforts they invested in this area. However, previous research has demonstrated considerable differences among parents in terms of the scope of their children’s social encounters. In other words, the number of encounters varied greatly among families (Guterman and Neuman 2016a, b). In light of the findings cited above regarding the importance of social encounters for children in homeschooling, it is essential to understand the source of these differences. This understanding is important both for practical reasons, to be able to help and guide 2784 homeschooling families, as well as for theoretical reasons, to understand the dynamic underlying the way in which these families practice homeschooling. Examination of these issues requires consideration of the degree of structure of the homeschooling. Earlier studies have indicated broad differences among families in the ways they implemented homeschooling (Ricci 2011). One of the most common distinctions employed in the literature on this subject is between structured homeschooling and unstructured homeschooling, or unschooling (Hanna 2012; Martin-Chang et al. 2011; Van Galen 1988). Structured homeschooling is based on a schedule with predetermined hours of study and the content of learning is decided by the parents; unstructured homeschooling generally relates to learning that originates from the child’s desire for knowledge and understanding. Therefore, learning of this type is not based on a schedule for learning planned by the parents, and the content is not dictated in advance by them. Clearly, the division between families who practice these two types of homeschooling is not dichotomous, but rather a continuum (Barratt-Peacock 2003). Furthermore, in homeschooling, the interaction between parents and children is more intensive than usual (when children attend school), because the parents and children spend much more time together. In this complex situation, the examination of the five basic personality traits, though important, may not provide a full picture of the situation. Therefore, it is also essential to examine the parents’ style of close relationships from the perspective of attachment theory, which is widely accepted in the study of personal and developmental processes. For this reason, in the present study we chose to examine, in a group of homeschooling families, the relationship between various central aspects of parents and the family and the frequency of social encounters. We focused on the socioeconomic factors of the family and on various key aspects of the parents’ personalities. In addition, the present study examined the degree of structure of the homeschooling process used by each family. This research was based on several hypotheses: First, there will be a positive correlation between extroversion and the scope of social interaction. Second, there will be a correlation between avoidant attachment of the parents and less social encounters of the child. Finally, structure in homeschooling will be correlated with more social relationships. Method Participants The participants in the study included 103 women (74.11%) and 36 men (25.89%), a total of 139 parents of children J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 from 139 different homeschooling families in Israel. One hundred and thirty-one of the participants were married and eight were single. The number of children in the family ranged between 1 and 7, with an average number of 2.36 and a standard deviation of 1.19. The average education of the mothers was 15.32 years, with a standard deviation of 1.72. The average education of the fathers was 15.07 years, with a standard deviation of 2.28. In 105 of the families, the mother was the dominant figure in the practice of homeschooling; in 4, the father was the dominant figure; and in 30 of the families, the parents said they divided the implementation of homeschooling equally between them. Procedure The participants were recruited at weekly homeschooling gatherings. In Israel, most of the families that engage in homeschooling attend regional meetings of this type. The researchers announced ahead of time that they would arrive at the gatherings in order to present research findings and to hold a conversation about homeschooling. In addition, participants were informed in advance that before the presentation of data and the conversation, questionnaires would be handed out to the parents. Before the distribution of the questionnaires, it was explained that the goal of the questionnaires was to conduct research on the homeschooling population. The questionnaires were anonymous and did not contain any identifying details. Eight percent of the participants refused to fill out the questionnaires (12 out of 151). After the questionnaires were completed, the goals of the study were explained in full detail and the participants were given an opportunity to ask questions. Measures The study made use of the big five inventory (BFI) questionnaires, a parental attachment questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire. Demographic questionnaire The parents completed a demographic questionnaire about themselves and their family, including features such as number of children in the family, education, and family income. In addition, part of the questionnaire requested details on the average number of hours devoted to scheduled learning each week for each child in the family. The questionnaire also addressed the number of weekly social encounters that each child had with children outside the family. This measure was based on the literature reviewed in the introduction to the present article, in which the scope of social encounters of children was estimated according to reports by their parents. J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 BFI questionnaire The Big Five Inventory questionnaire, or BFI (John et al. 1991) examines five main personality traits: neuroticism, openness to experiences, extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. The questionnaire is composed of 44 short descriptive phrases representing different personality traits. The participants rate themselves on each trait using a scale of 1–7, ranging from (1) disagree strongly to (7) agree strongly. By averaging the relevant items, a separate score for each of the five personality traits was acquired. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.85 for extroversion, 0.76 for agreeableness, 0.89 for conscientiousness, 0.86 for neuroticism, and 0.77 for openness to experiences. It is interesting to note that the results obtained on this questionnaire among homeschooling parents were similar to those reported in other studies conducted parents who did not homeschool. Parental attachment questionnaire The experience in close relationship scale (Brennan et al. 1998), which was translated into Hebrew by Mikulincer and Florian (2000), is a self-reporting questionnaire composed of 36 items on attachment. Eighteen items examine the dimension of anxiety, and another 18 items examine the dimension of avoidance. For each item, the participants rated the degree to which it describes their feelings in close relationships on a scale of 1–7, ranging from (1) disagree very strongly to (7) agree very strongly. For each participant, a score was calculated for each of the two dimensions of attachment separately, by averaging the items related to each dimension. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.85 for anxiety and 0.91 for avoidance. Data Analyses To examine the relationship between the personality and socioeconomic variables and the child’s social encounters, Pearson correlations were calculated. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the contribution of the above-mentioned variables to the explained variance of the child’s social encounters. This method of analysis enables examination of the combined effect of the variables, and not only relationships between any two variables. In the first stage, a regression was performed which included all the variables mentioned above, even though some were not found to be linked to the child’s social encounters. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether these variables contributed as a main effect or through an interaction with other variables. In the second stage, a hierarchical regression was performed that included variables that had been found to be linked to children’s social 2785 encounters, whether as a main effect or through an interaction. The final regression included five steps. In the first step, socioeconomic characteristics of the family—number of children, mother’s education, and family income—were introduced. The father’s education, which was not found to be linked to the scope of a child’s social encounters, was not introduced into the regression. It is important to note that the introduction of socioeconomic variables into the regression was based on their interaction with other variables. In the second step, the parent’s attachment avoidance was introduced. Parental attachment anxiety, which was not found to be linked to the scope of a child’s social encounters, was not introduced into the regression. In the third step, the parent’s levels of extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were introduced. The rest of the elements of the Big Five questionnaire were not introduced since they were not found to be linked to the scope of a child’s social encounters. In the fourth step, the number of weekly hours devoted to learning was introduced. The fifth step included the introduction of the interaction between the demographic characteristics X parents’ personality characteristics, interactions which enable us to examine whether the contribution of personality characteristics to the child’s social encounters depended on the demographic characteristics. In the first four steps, the introduction of the variables was forced, while in the fifth step, interactions were entered only if they contributed significantly (p < .05) to the explained variance. Results The Pearson correlations showed that attachment avoidance was negatively correlated to the child’s social encounters (r = −.24, p < .01); the higher the mother’s attachment avoidance, the lower the child’s social encounters. Conscientiousness was positively linked to the child’s social encounters (r = .18, p < .05); the higher the level of conscientiousness, the higher the child’s social encounters. The number of hours devoted to learning was also positively linked to the child’s social encounters (r = .29, p < .01); the higher the number of hours devoted to learning, the higher the child’s social encounters. The hierarchical regression coefficients are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, in the first step, in which mother’s education and family income were entered, no significant contribution to the explained variance was found. In the second step, in which attachment avoidance was introduced, a significant contribution of 6% was found. Avoidance was negatively linked to the scope of a child’s social encounters; in other words, as the level of the 2786 J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 Table 1 Hierarchical regression coefficients explaining the variance in the scope of social encounters with children (N = 139) Predictor ΔR2 Step 1 .01 β Number of children .06 Mother’s education .05 .06* Step 2 −.24** Avoidance Step 3 .07 * Extroversion .18* Conscientiousness .21* .15* Agreeableness Step 4 .10 *** Hours devoted .45*** to learning Step 5 Fig. 1 The relationship between hours of learning and scope of social encounters in families with many children and families with few children .17 Number of children X −.49*** Hours of learning Number of children X −.24** Agreeableness Mother’s education X .22** Agreeableness Total R 2 .41 *** *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 mother’s avoidance increased, the scope of the child’s social encounters decreased. The third step, in which extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were introduced, added a significant contribution of 7% to the explained variance in the scope of a child’s social encounters. Extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were all found to be positively linked to the child’s social encounters; as the levels of extroversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness rose, the number of the child’s social encounters rose as well. In the fourth step, in which the variable of the number of weekly hours devoted to learning was introduced, a significant contribution of 10% was seen to the explained variance in the scope of the child’s social encounters. The number of hours devoted to learning was positively linked to the child’s social encounters. In other words, as the number of hours devoted to learning increased, the child’s social encounters increased. In the fifth step, three interactions contributed significantly to the explained variance: number of children X hours devoted to learning, number of children X agreeableness, and mother’s education X agreeableness. These interactions added 17% to the explained variance. To clarify the interactions, Aiken and West’s method (1991) was used. Figures 1 and 2 present a graphic description of interactions of the number of children X the Fig. 2 The relationship between agreeableness in the child’s social encounters in families with many children and families with few children number of hours devoted to learning and the number of children X agreeableness. From the analysis of these interactions, it appears that in families with few children, there is a significant positive correlation between the number of hours of learning and the child’s social encounters, β = .90, p < .001, and likewise between parental agreeableness and the child’s social encounters, β = .32, p < .01. In other words, in this group, as both the number of hours devoted to learning and the level of agreeableness increase, the child’s social encounters also increases. Among families with many children, a positive and significant contribution was also found, albeit much weaker, between the number of hours devoted to learning and the child’s social encounters, β = .22, p < .05. No significant correlation was found between agreeableness and the child’s social encounters, β = −.05, p > .05. Figure 3 presents a graphic description of the interaction between mother’s education X agreeableness, in a regression that relates to the child’s social encounters. J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 Fig. 3 The relationship between agreeableness and the child’s social encounters in families with highly educated mothers and families with less educated mothers From the analysis of the interaction, we see that among highly educated mothers, there was no significant correlation between agreeableness and the scope of a child’s social encounters β = .03, p > .05. In contrast, among mothers with a low level of education, there was a positive and significant correlation between agreeableness and the scope of a child’s social encounters, β = .29, p < .05; in other words, among this group, as the mother is more agreeable, the scope of the child’s social encounters widens. Discussion In the present study, we found a relationship between the scope of a homeschooled child’s social encounters and central aspects of the family and the parents. A strong and positive relationship was found between the weekly hours devoted to scheduled learning and the scope of a child’s social encounters; families in which more hours are devoted to scheduled learning are characterized by a higher number of social encounters with other children. It is interesting to note that this relationship was stronger in families that had a smaller number of children. It is possible to explain this relationship in several ways: first, in previous research some of the parents described social encounters as regularly scheduled meetings devoted to learning, such as classes for homeschooled children, joint field trips to museums, and so on (Guterman and Neuman 2014; Neuman 2003). That is, it may be that the relationship between structure in homeschooling and the scope of a child’s social encounters stems from the fact that some of the hours devoted to learning are based on community social activities. In other words, families maintain structured learning processes in a homeschooling framework as well as in a framework of social encounters; those who believe in the need for more hours of structured learning will 2787 encourage more hours of scheduled learning both at home as well as in a social setting. Another explanation for the findings might view both activities, social and educational, as linked to the degree of the parent’s initiative as well as their tendency to be goaloriented. This explanation points to certain behaviors and attitudes –willingness of the parent to invest resources, to plan ahead, and to initiate–as being the factors behind the ability to initiate and maintain social relationships as well as situations that enable the creation of social ties. These factors also seem to be behind the ability to build a clear program of study and follow through on it. This explanation is also consistent with an additional finding in the present study, which points to the link between parental conscientiousness and the child’s social encounters. These two explanations presented for the findings also allow us to understand why the correlation between the hours devoted to learning and the child’s social encounters is stronger in families with fewer children. Regarding the use of social encounters as a basis for learning, it is possible that in families with more children, it is easier to facilitate group learning within the family, since the group of siblings functions as a multi-age learning group. In this situation, there is less need to meet with other families for group learning. In contrast, when families with fewer children are interested in facilitating learning in a social context, they must participate in social encounters. Regarding the explanation that refers to parental personality, it is possible that parents of children with few siblings feel a greater need to initiate social encounters. That is, it may be that siblings fulfill some of a child’s social needs. In this situation, the parents’ tendency to initiate will be expressed more in families with fewer children, since the need for social connections outside the family is more significant from the parents’ point of view. In future research, it would be interesting to examine these ideas using qualitative research that would examine how parents address this issue in families with different numbers of children. In addition, in future research, it would be interesting to map the types of social encounters and the activities that occur there and in this way to examine whether indeed some of the social encounters were directed toward learning. With regard to the personality variables, a significant contribution was found in three variables: agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extroversion. Regarding these three variables, a positive relationship was found between them and the child’s social encounters; the more conscientious, agreeable, and extroverted the parents, the wider the scope of the child’s social encounters. We believe that these findings are important, since they show that parental personality traits contribute significantly to the social life of children in homeschooling. 2788 It is interesting to see that these relationships were found to be similar despite the fact that there are three separate influences. Conscientiousness is linked to the ability to focus on a goal and to plan, to be consistent and to demonstrate responsibility. It appears that this trait is linked to the parent’s willingness to invest effort in creating situations that facilitate social encounters. Extroversion is linked to the level in which a person is involved in a social group, active and assertive. It appears that for these parents it is easier to form social ties with other parents and therefore easier to initiate connections that enable the creation of social situations for the child. Agreeableness is linked to kindness, tact, willingness to participate, and generosity. It appears that more agreeable people create a more comfortable atmosphere and facilitate the creation of social ties between parents and, indirectly, between children. Regarding agreeableness, it was found that in families with few children, agreeableness was positively linked to the child’s social encounters; in this group, the more agreeable the parents, the greater the scope of the child’s social encounters. This relationship was not found in families with a larger number of children. Similarly, it was found that among families in which the mother was highly educated, agreeableness was positively linked to the child’s social encounters; the more agreeable the parent, the greater the scope of the child’s social encounters. This relationship was not found in families with less educated mothers. These findings may be explained through the hypothesis that parent’s agreeableness does in fact assist in the creation of the child’s social ties, but only when the parent has the appropriate motivation. That is, as previously mentioned here, siblings may partially fulfill a child’s social needs. In this situation, parents in families with many children may feel less of a need to create social ties. When there is less of a need, the advantage of agreeableness plays less of a part, and therefore the link between parental agreeableness and the child’s social encounters is not significant. A similar explanation may be given regarding parents’ education. For example, more educated parents may be more aware of the child’s social needs and make greater efforts to create social opportunities for the child. In this situation, when the parent is aware and makes an effort, the advantage of agreeableness in forming social ties becomes apparent. In future research, it would be interesting to examine in greater depth the link between these variables and parental motivation in forming social ties for the child. The finding regarding the attachment style was also consistent with the other personality findings. A negative correlation was found between parental avoidance and the scope of a child’s social encounters; the higher the level of avoidance, the smaller the scope of a child’s social encounters. Attachment avoidance is linked to a negative J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 feeling towards close relationships and intimate situations (Brennan et al. 1998; Fraley and Waller 1998; Fraley et al. 2000; Shaver et al. 2000). This difficulty may be expressed in the parent’s avoidance of close relationships with other parents and therefore makes the formation of social opportunities for the child more difficult. Despite the interesting findings from this research, the present study has a number of significant limitations. First, since the research is a preliminary study in the field, we chose to focus on central personality factors, but of course the research did not examine other important aspects of personality such as locus of control, care-giving and others. In future research, it would be interesting to examine these personality factors and others in terms of their effect on the scope of the child’s social encounters. Second, in the present study we examined the child’s social relationships without distinguishing between different types of relationships. Previous research findings show that the type of relationship may also be important (Guterman and Neuman 2016a, 2016b). In future research, it would be interesting to examine the effect of parental personality separately on different types of relationships. Finally, it is important to note that the present study was conducted in a single country, Israel. Although there are many similarities among Western countries, each country has its own specific social and educational conditions. Against this background, the ability to generalize the findings of the present research to other countries may be limited. It is hoped that the present research will serve as a basis for examination of the same important questions in additional countries in which the practice of homeschooling is increasing. Despite these limitations, since this study examine the link between personality and parental background and the child’s social encounters for children in homeschooling, it paves the way for future research in the field. The high explained variance which is seen in the findings of this study indicates that parents have a significant influence on the social world of homeschooled children. Since in contrast to their age-mates who attend school, homeschooled children are not in a framework in which they meet with other children on a daily basis, the issue of a child’s social relationships becomes critical. This study provides a basis for understanding the factors that underlie differences between families in the scope of the children’s social relationships. Therefore, these findings provide a theoretical contribution to understanding differences between families and the factors that underlie these differences. In addition, the findings lay important groundwork for professionals who work with homeschooling families, since they point to aspects that are likely to assist in or interfere with the formation of a child’s social relationships. Because of the importance of this issue, we hope that the present study provides a foundation for J Child Fam Stud (2017) 26:2782–2789 future research that will expand our understanding of the field. Author Contributions OG designed and executed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. AN designed and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and wrote the paper. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflicts of Interest peting interests. The authors declare that they have no com- Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Atkinson, M., Martin, K., Downing, D., Harland, J., Kendall, S., & White, R. (2007). Support for children who are educated at home. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Barratt-Peacock, J. (2003). Australian home education: A model. Evaluation and Research in Education, 17, 101–111. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chatham-Carpenter, A. (1994). Home versus public schoolers: Differing social opportunities. Home School Researcher, 10(1), 15–24. Davis, A. (2011). Evolution of homeschooling. Distance learning, 8 (2), 29–35. Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes (Eds.). Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Gathercole, R. (2007). The well-adjusted child: The social benefits of homeschooling. Denver, CO: Mapletree. Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2014). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Routledge: Psychology Press. Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2014). Old/new way to learn—homeschooling (or the past and future of education). Paper presented at 12th International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities. Madrid, Spain. Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2016a). Schools and emotional and behavioral problems: A comparison of school-going and homeschooled children. Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 425–432. doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1116055. Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2016b). What makes a social encounter meaningful: The impact of social encounters of homeschooled 2789 children on emotional and behavioral problems. Education and Urban Society, doi:10.1177/0013124516677009. Hanna, L. G. (2012). Homeschooling education: Longitudinal study of methods, materials, and curricula. Education and Urban Society, 20(10), 1–23. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory—versions 4a and 54 (Tech. Report). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. Kunzman, R., & Gaither, M. (2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 2(1), 4–59. Martin-Chang, S., Gould, O. N., & Meuse, R. E. (2011). The impact of schooling on academic achievement: Evidence from homeschooled and traditionally schooled children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43(3), 195–202. Medlin, R. G. (2000). Home schooling and the question of socialization. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 107–123. Medlin, R. G. (2013). Homeschooling and the question of socialization revisited. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 284–297. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience: Does attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 260–273. Nelsen, M. B. (1998). Beyond the stereotypes: Home schooling as a legitimate educational alternative. High School Magazine, 6(2), 32–37. Neuman, A. (2003). Home schooling in Israel (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Neuman, A., & Aviram, A. (2003). Home schooling as a fundamental change in lifestyle. Evaluation and Research in Education, 17, 132–143. Neuman, A., & Aviram, A. (2008). Home schooling—A rational choice in a postmodern world or “There’s a little child saying the Emperor hasn’t got anything on.” International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3, 185–194. Provasnik, S. (2006). Judicial activism and the origins of parental choice: The court’s role in the institutionalization of compulsory education in the United States, 1891–1925. History of Education Quarterly, 46(3), 311–347. Ray, B. D. (1994). A nationwide study of home education in Canada. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ray, B. D. (1997). Strengths of their own: Home schoolers across America. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ray, B. D. (1999). Home schooling on the threshold: A survey of research at the dawn of the new millennium. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ricci, C. (2011). Unschooling and the willed curriculum. Encounter, 24(3), 45–48. Rothermel, P. (2011). Setting the record straight: Interviews with a hundred British home educating families. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 10, 20–57. Rothermel, P. -J. (2002). Home-education: Rationales, practices and outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham: University of Durham. Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The adult attachment interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43. Van Galen, J. A. (1988). Ideology, curriculum, and pedagogy in home education. Education and Urban Society, 21, 52–68. Wentzel, K. R., & Looney, L. (2007). Socialization in school settings. In J. E. Grusec, P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 382–403). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Journal of Child & Family Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Int Rev Educ (2017) 63:303–318 DOI 10.1007/s11159-017-9637-2 ORIGINAL PAPER Different reasons for one significant choice: Factors influencing homeschooling choice in Israel Oz Guterman1 • Ari Neuman2 Published online: 25 April 2017  Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2017 Abstract Homeschooling is an alternative to conventional education in many countries all over the world, though legal regulations vary. This article examines why parents opt for homeschooling. The large body of research on the topic (especially from the United States) points to a variety of reasons for making the choice to homeschool. The most common reasons are of a pedagogical nature, but in many cases they are also familyrelated. What has not yet been investigated in depth is the relationship between the different reasons for choosing homeschooling and the way in which homeschooling is practised. There is also a lack of research on the relationship between the reasons for choosing homeschooling and the parents’ personalities, educational background and attitudes towards both homeschooling in particular and the education system in general. Using a mixed methods design in order to examine these relationships, the authors of this article questioned 62 homeschooling families in Israel. The findings indicate that some parents chose to homeschool for pedagogical reasons only and others for both pedagogical and family-related reasons. Furthermore, the latter group held more positive views of the effect of homeschooling on children – and the mothers in that group, on average, were more educated compared with those who cited pedagogical reasons alone. The reasons for choosing homeschooling were also found to be associated with the character of the homeschooling practice, with families whose reasons were pedagogical only devoting more hours, on average, specifically to studying. Both authors contributed equally to this article. & Ari Neuman neumanari@gmail.com Oz Guterman ozgute13@gmail.com 1 Department of Human Resources, Western Galilee College, Akko, Israel 2 Department of Education, Western Galilee College, Akko, Israel 123 304 O. Guterman, A. Neuman Keywords Homeschooling
Mixed methods research
Reasons for choosing homeschooling
Characteristics of homeschooling Résumé Différentes raisons pour un choix d’importance : facteurs qui influencent la décision sur l’instruction à domicile en Israël – L’enseignement à domicile est une alternative à l’éducation conventionnelle dans de nombreux pays de tous les continents, même si les réglementations juridiques diffèrent. Cet article examine les raisons pour lesquelles des parents optent pour l’instruction à domicile. Le vaste corpus de recherche sur le sujet (provenant notamment des États-Unis) signale plusieurs raisons en faveur de ce choix. Les plus courantes sont de nature pédagogique, mais dans de nombreux cas elles sont également d’ordre familial. Ce qui n’a pas encore été exploré jusqu’ici est la relation entre les différentes raisons de choisir cet enseignement et les manières de le pratiquer. La recherche présente une autre lacune concernant la relation entre d’une part ces raisons, d’autre part la personnalité et le niveau d’instruction des parents ainsi que leur opinion sur l’enseignement à domicile en particulier et le système éducatif en général. Appliquant un modèle de recherche à méthode mixte en vue d’examiner ces relations, les auteurs de l’article ont questionné 62 familles pratiquant l’instruction à domicile en Israël. Les résultats indiquent que certains parents ont pris cette décision uniquement pour des raisons pédagogiques, d’autres pour des raisons tant pédagogiques que familiales. Ce deuxième groupe a en outre des opinions plus positives sur les conséquences de l’instruction à domicile sur les enfants, et les mères concernées ont en moyenne une instruction supérieure à celles évoquant uniquement des raisons pédagogiques. Les raisons de choisir l’éducation à domicile seraient par ailleurs associées à la nature de cette pratique, chez les familles qui avancent des motifs uniquement pédagogiques et consacrent en moyenne davantage d’heures à l’apprentissage. Introduction Homeschooling is a practice whereby children are not enrolled in schools but study school subjects at home. The term is used with reference to parents or guardians who teach their children at home (Blok 2004; Neuman and Aviram 2003, 2008). Throughout most of human history until the Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, homeschooling was common in Western countries such as England, France and Germany (Wilhelm and Firmin 2009); in fact, until then only a very small number of children attended educational institutions. Correspondingly, there were also very few public education systems, school buildings or professional educators. Parents were responsible for the education of their children, which in many cases was an integral part of the family’s daily life, rather than an activity which took place at a specific time or in a specific place. After the Industrial Revolution, mandatory education laws were enacted, a large number of public education systems were established, numerous educators were trained and children were required to attend school (Hiatt 1994; Gaither 2009; Neuman and Aviram 2003, 2008; Wilhelm and Firmin 2009; Guterman and Neuman 2014). 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 305 The scope of homeschooling varies among countries. In the United States (US), for instance, an estimated 2 million children are homeschooled; in England, the estimated figure is 80,000; in Canada, 50,000; in Australia, 30,000; and in France, 2,800 (Neuman and Guterman 2013). Furthermore, this practice has been expanding in the Western world in recent decades, as is evident, for example, in Canada and the US, where the estimated number of homeschooling children grew from a few thousand in the 1970s to 2 million in 2010 (Aurini and Davies 2005; Blok and Karsten 2011; Ray 2011; Kunzman and Gaither 2013). In Israel, although the practice began later (approximately two decades ago during the 1990s), there has also been a significant increase in the number and percentage of homeschoolers. An estimated 360 families currently engage in homeschooling in Israel (two decades ago, there were only about 60 families) (Neuman and Guterman 2013). It is possible to understand the rapid development of the practice of homeschooling over the last two decades against the background of growing criticism of the education system and the pursuant quest for alternatives to conventional schools (Fielding and Moss 2011; Clennon 2014; Pilat 2014). Among these approaches, homeschooling is one of the most interesting and perhaps the furthest from conventional education. As noted, in contrast to alternative frameworks, making the choice to homeschool is not just a change of educational setting, but a choice to remove the child from any formal institution of learning (or never even send it there in the first place). There are likely to be several serious implications resulting from the decision to remove a child from the mainstream education system. For example, it may affect the family’s standard of living if one parent is forced to stop working or reduce their hours (Neuman and Aviram 2003). It may also influence the child’s social development, since school is a social framework in which children meet and develop relationships with other children their own age, as well as undergoing a process of socialisation into the culture in which they live (Merry and Karsten 2010; Després 2013). Thus, the decision to take a child out of a formal academic setting is not a trivial one. It is a decision with economic, social and academic implications which are likely to be far-reaching for the family and the child. What brings parents to the point of making such a significant choice? In recent years, researchers who analysed the National Household Education Survey (NHES) – a comprehensive survey on education-related topics conducted in the US every two years1 – arrived repeatedly at the conclusion that the main factors in a parent’s decision to begin homeschooling were pedagogical (dissatisfaction with academic instruction and a desire to provide a non-traditional approach to a child’s education), religious (a desire to provide religious instruction), and related to the school environment (Princiotta and Bielick 2006; Bielick 2008; Noel et al. 2013). It is important to note that it is not just a matter of a few isolated cases. Amber Noel and her colleagues (2013), who analysed the NHES of 2012, found that 91 per cent of homeschooling parents in the US reported that concern about the school 1 The National Household Education Survey (NHES) is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the US. For more information, see https://nces.ed.gov/nhes/ [accessed 29 March 2017]. 123 306 O. Guterman, A. Neuman environment was the most important reason for choosing homeschooling. Robert Kunzman (2009), who summarised a large body of research which examined the reasons for choosing homeschooling, claims that most homeschooling parents believe they can provide a better educational experience for their children than a school can, and they are ready to sacrifice their time, money and professional development to make this happen. Generally (though not always), the parents are not satisfied with the conventional educational options, including private schools. Similar to Noel et al. (2013), Kunzman pointed out that in the 2007 NHES, 88 per cent of parents involved in homeschooling identified concern about the environment (2009) in conventional schools as a significant factor in their decision to homeschool (Green and Hoover-Dempsey 2007; Isenberg 2007; NCES 2008). Nolen Olsen (2008) also found that the main factors which motivated parents in Canada to choose homeschooling for their children were pedagogical. He listed the factors in order of importance: (1) the negative influence of socialisation of the peer group; (2) religion; (3) a child’s special educational needs or disability; (4) a parent’s own negative experiences in school as a child; (5) lack of administrative support on the part of the school; and (6) an incident at school in which the child was involved. Brian Ray (1999) suggested additional pedagogical reasons for the choice of parents in the US to homeschool, including: an aspiration for greater individual academic achievement than the school demanded; a wish to create a personal study programme and an educational environment appropriate for the child’s needs and strengths; and finally, a desire to offer children opportunities for facilitated social interaction with other children and adults, rather than letting the school determine this activity. It should be noted that the concept of pedagogical reasons includes a broad range of parental views. For example, a number of studies exposed ideological reasons for parents to homeschool. Several studies conducted in the US, for example, revealed that religious groups held prominent views that children should not learn theories of evolution, which contradicted their beliefs about creation (see e.g. Hanna 2011). These pedagogical reasons cited by parents for discrediting schools differ greatly, for instance, from concerns about a low standard of education. Nevertheless, in all cases, the reasons are school-related, that is, they refer to the character and content of school studies. The emphasis on pedagogical reasons is also reflected in specific groups of homeschooling families. For example, Carrie Winstanley (2009), who researched a special group of homeschooling – parents of gifted children in England –, found that pedagogical reasons were most central in the decisions of these families, too. Winstanley claimed that homeschooling was a last resort for the frustrated families of gifted children whose complex needs were not being met by conventional schools. Although much research has demonstrated that the main reasons for choosing homeschooling are pedagogical, there is evidence that this significant choice is also affected by family-related factors, that is, the character of the family unit and the relationships among its members. For example, Sally Varnham (2008) found that homeschooling parents in Australia and New Zealand placed special emphasis on parental responsibility in their children’s education, the relationship with their 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 307 children and their children’s particular health needs. All of these are important elements in the decision to homeschool. Both Nolen Olsen (2008) and Ed Collom (2005) noted that in some cases, specific family needs led parents to choose homeschooling. Brian Ray (1999) found that some parents chose homeschooling with the aim of cultivating a better relationship between their children and themselves, and between children and their siblings. Bonnie Boschee and Floyd Boschee (2011) also showed that for certain families in the US, the main reason for choosing homeschooling was to strengthen relationships in the family. While this review of reasons for homeschooling is general, it is nevertheless important to note the variance by country. For example, in the US, many families choose homeschooling for religious reasons, but in Australia, more families homeschool because of their remote location (Kunzman 2009). Most of the data presented here refer to the US; there are almost no figures on this subject regarding Israel. In this respect, in addition to providing information on the relationship between reasons for homeschooling and character of the practice, the study we present here also offers findings on the reasons for choosing homeschooling in Israel. Although much research has addressed the question of why parents choose homeschooling, very little attention has been directed towards investigating the factors that underlie the diverse reasons which parents cite for this decision. In the study we present here, we were interested in two questions: Do parents with different levels of education choose homeschooling for different reasons? And are their reasons for choosing home education associated with particular personality traits? The study we present here focused on these factors by examining the reasons for homeschooling among a group of families in Israel, and the relationship between these reasons and a list of additional factors including parents’ education level; central aspects of the parents’ personalities; and parental attitudes towards the educational system and homeschooling. In our view, an examination of the relationship between reasons for choosing homeschooling and a parent’s background and personality was likely to shed light on some of the factors behind the choice to homeschool. This relationship has not merited much attention by researchers to date. In addition to these factors, which are important in their own right, the study we present here also focused on the practical behavioural implications of the reasons for homeschooling. Research has shown broad diversity in the way homeschooling is carried out by different families (Ricci 2011). Some practise structured homeschooling, in which parents initiate structured study processes at home and insist on a predefined schedule for these processes (Taylor-Hough 2010). By contrast, other families practise unstructured homeschooling or unschooling, in which learning is not initiated by the parents but is based on the natural learning desires of the child (ibid.). Of course, this is not a binary system, but rather a continuum in which each family adopts its own unique plan (Barratt-Peacock 2003). The question arises, then, whether the reasons for homeschooling are also associated with the chosen character of homeschooling. Previous research has not provided a clear-cut answer to this question. Therefore, the study we present here focused on the underlying factors of 123 308 O. Guterman, A. Neuman the different reasons for choosing homeschooling, as well as the implications of these reasons for the way homeschooling is practised. In addition to these variables, our study also examined parental personality and demographic aspects. It was important to include these variables in the examination in light of previous research findings which suggest a correlation between them and educational choices made by parents. For example, in a meta-analysis of the interrelationships among the Big Five personality factors,2 Peter Prinzie et al. (2009) found that a parent’s personality was associated with their parenting practices. With regard to the focus of the study we present here, the meta-analysis indicated that a high degree of parental involvement, which is characteristic of extroverted parents, can contribute to more active and assertive parenting, which involves a greater emphasis on discipline and boundaries. It also showed that parents with a high level of conscientiousness were likely to raise their children in a more structured and consistent environment. Another prominent finding of the research about the relationship between personality and parenting style concerns attachment. Although a full review of the knowledge in this field is beyond the scope of this article, it should be noted that anxious attachment, which is associated with fear of abandonment and distancing in intimate relationships, has been found to correlate with the development of strict, and sometimes even inflexible parenting mechanisms. By contrast, avoidant attachment, which is associated with fear of close relationships, has been found in some cases to correlate with a tendency towards more distant parenting (Edelstein et al. 2004; Kindsvatter and Desmond 2013; Sümer and Harma 2015). As discussed here, research has shown that educational views and practices are significantly correlated with parents’ personalities and personal characteristics. In order to take into consideration these findings and the connection between them and the reasons parents state for choosing to homeschool, the study we present here examines parents’ personalities and personal characteristics. Method Participants Of the 62 parents who participated in our study by completing questionnaires, 46 were women (76.12%) and 16 were men (23.88%). The number of children per family ranged from 1 to 7 and the average number of children was 2.45. The standard deviation was 1.29. Fifty-nine of the participants were secular and 3 were religious. The mothers’ average years of education was 15.93 (SD = 2.68). Fiftynine of the participants were married and 3 were single. All the children of the research participants were of elementary-school age. Each of the participants represented a different family (none of the participants were married to each other). All were parents of children who were homeschooled in Israel. None of the parents 2 The Big Five Inventory (BFI) personality factors are: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (John et al. 1991). 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 309 in the sample were teachers employed by Israel’s Ministry of Education. Most of them (n = 56) did not follow the ministry’s national curriculum, but progressed independently through the mathematics, English and science workbooks which they chose according to their own judgement and in consultation with the children. Thirty-three of the participants noted that they had chosen the curriculum solely in agreement with their children; 11 said they had no curriculum at all and that learning was based on subjects which arose in the household. The respondents were divided into two groups based on their main reason for having chosen homeschooling: 29 were in the ‘‘pedagogical only’’ group; and 33 were in the ‘‘pedagogical and family reasons’’ group (see Procedure section). Research tools For the purpose of this research, we used three questionnaires: the Big Five Inventory (BFI); a questionnaire on attitudes towards homeschooling; and a demographic questionnaire. BFI questionnaire The Big Five Inventory or BFI (John et al. 1991) examines five main personality characteristics: openness to experience; conscientiousness; extraversion; agreeableness; and neuroticism. The BFI questionnaire is composed of 44 short descriptive phrases which represent different personality traits. The participants rate themselves on each trait on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). By averaging the relevant items, a separate score emerges for each of the five personality traits. In the study we present here, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.78 for openness to experience, 0.85 for conscientiousness, 0.83 for extraversion, 0.78 for agreeableness and 0.89 for neuroticism. Attitudes questionnaire The second questionnaire we asked the parents to fill in was one we designed to find out about their attitudes towards the education system and the influence of homeschooling on their children. The questionnaire was composed of short descriptive sentences for which the participants rated their level of agreement on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The section of the questionnaire which examined attitudes towards the education system was composed of six short descriptive sentences. For example, one of the items was ‘‘I have faith in the education system’’. An averaging of items resulted in a score for the parent’s attitude towards the education system. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this section was 0.87. The section of the questionnaire on attitudes towards the influence of homeschooling on children was composed of seven short descriptive sentences. For example, one of the sentences was ‘‘Homeschooling is helpful for children’’. An averaging of items yielded a score for the parent’s attitude towards the influence of homeschooling. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this section was 0.91. 123 310 O. Guterman, A. Neuman Demographic questionnaire The parents completed a demographic questionnaire which included their and their family’s personal characteristics, such as gender, number of children in the family, education and income. In addition, it included questions on how many hours were devoted to learning each week, on average, for each child in the family; the number of weekly social meetings of each child with other homeschooled children; and the number of weekly social meetings with children who were not homeschooled. The questionnaire also included an open-ended question in which respondents were asked to cite their reasons for choosing to homeschool. This question was related to the main goal of our research, which was to examine the relationships between the choice to homeschool and the way in which homeschooling was practised, and the choice to homeschool and parents’ attitudes and personalities. These answers were divided into a number of categories, with each answer placed in one category. This, in effect, divided the respondents into groups based on their answers to this question. This categorisation process was based on qualitative methodology (see e.g. Strauss and Corbin 1990; Dey 1993). During the process, the researcher classified the data by ascribing different sentences and text parts to groups with a common denominator, constantly comparing different parts of the text and finding similarities or differences between them (Seidel and Kelle 1995). The result of the process was that different parts of the text belonged to different topic groups. In accordance with Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba’s peer debriefing principle (1986), one researcher carried out the analysis, and then the second researcher critically re-examined the results of this analysis. Disagreements between the two researchers were resolved through discussion. The process of categorising the text included a number of stages. The first stage was open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1990), in which the data were placed in a category – one or several words which described the reason or reasons why the parents chose homeschooling. Then the categories were grouped in a process of mapping analysis (Pidgeon and Henwood 1996) into two super-categories: pedagogical reasons only (for example, discontent with the public education system or worldviews about how teaching and learning should take place); and both pedagogical and family reasons (an example of family reasons is the joy of being together as a family, or the belief that the family is the most suitable environment for a child). Each of the reasons cited by the respondents on the questionnaires was placed into one of these categories. Procedure We invited homeschooling parents to a meeting during which, as they had been informed ahead of time, questionnaires were administered, followed by a lecture on homeschooling. Before handing out the questionnaires, we explained to the parents that our research was intended to collect and analyse new information on homeschooling. The parents then signed an informed consent form. Four parents (approximately 6%) refused to fill out the questionnaires. After the questionnaires had been completed, there was a question-and-answer session about the 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 311 questionnaires and the research. This was followed by a lecture, which discussed the findings of previous research in Israel on the emotional and academic abilities of children who were homeschooled compared with those who attended school (Guterman and Neuman 2016). Based on their answers regarding the main reason for choosing to homeschool, the parents were divided into two groups: those whose main reason for choosing homeschooling was pedagogical only; and those whose primary reasons were both pedagogical and family-related. Results Four Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) analyses were conducted in order to determine whether the two groups of parents, who were divided based on whether they had chosen homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only or for both pedagogical and family reasons, differed in terms of educational background, personalities, attitudes towards homeschooling and the education system, and way of practising homeschooling. The results of the analysis regarding the parents’ years of education indicated a significant difference between the two groups of parents: F(2,59) = 6.29, p \ .01, Eta2 = .18. The means and standard deviations of parents’ education by reasons for choosing homeschooling, as well as the results of the separate analyses for each indicator, are presented in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, significant differences were found between the two groups of parents in terms of the mothers’ years of education. Among parents who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons, the mothers’ education was higher than in families who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only. The results of the second analysis, which pertained to the parents’ personalities, indicated no significant differences between parents who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons and those who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons: F(5,56) = 0.87, p [ .05, Eta2 = .07. The results of the third analysis revealed significant differences between the groups of parents in terms of attitudes towards homeschooling: F(2,59) = 2.44, Table 1 Means and standard deviations of parental education by reason for choosing homeschooling Reason for choosing homeschooling Pedagogical (n = 29) Pedagogical and family (n = 33) Measures M SD M SD F(1, 60) Eta2 Mother’s education 14.55 1.62 16.27 2.17 12.26* 0.18 Father’s education 14.72 1.91 15.30 2.28 1.20 0.02 Notes: p \ .01; * = significant difference 123 312 O. Guterman, A. Neuman Table 2 Means and standard deviations of parental attitudes by reason for choosing homeschooling Reason for choosing homeschooling Pedagogical (n = 29) Pedagogical and family (n = 33) Measures M SD M SD F(1, 60) Eta2 Attitudes on educational system 2.99 1.15 2.85 1.05 0.26 0.01 Attitudes on influence of homeschooling on child 4.87 0.93 5.38 0.88 4.88* 0.08 Notes: p \ .05; * = significant difference p \ .05, Eta2 = .08. The means and standard deviations of the parents’ attitudes by reasons for choosing homeschooling, as well as the results of the separate analyses for each indicator, are presented in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, significant differences were found between the groups of parents in their attitudes on the influence of homeschooling on their child. Parents who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons viewed homeschooling more positively than did parents who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only. The results of the fourth analysis showed significant differences between groups of parents in the way in which they practised homeschooling: F(2,59) = 3.69, p \ .05, Eta2 = .11. The means and standard deviations of the way homeschooling was practised according to reasons for choosing homeschooling, as well as the results of the separate analyses for each indicator, are presented in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, significant differences were found between the groups of parents in terms of the number of weekly hours devoted to learning. The parents who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only devoted a greater number of weekly hours to learning compared with the parents who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons. Discussion The decision to educate a child in one way or another is one of the most important and meaningful choices that each family can make. When it comes to the decision to take a child out of a formal educational framework entirely, the choice is even more significant; it has far-reaching ramifications both for the child and for the family and it is not surprising that researchers are interested in this choice. As discussed in the introduction, several studies have examined the reasons for choosing homeschooling (Princiotta and Bielick 2006; Bielick 2008; Noel et al. 2013). However, the study we present here delved further into this issue, examining whether the difference in the reasons for choosing homeschooling is related to other factors. Parents were asked to state their reasons for choosing homeschooling. Through qualitative analysis, we divided the respondents into two groups: parents whose 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 313 Table 3 Means and standard deviations of way of practicing homeschooling by reason for choosing homeschooling Reason for choosing homeschooling Pedagogical (n = 29) Pedagogical and family (n = 33) Measures M SD M SD F(1, 60) Eta2 Daily schedule 4.28 1.34 3.88 1.34 0.26 0.01 Hours devoted to learning 4.76 4.08 1.61 2.52 4.88* 0.08 Notes: p \ .05; * = significant difference reasons for choosing homeschooling were pedagogical only; and parents whose reasons were both pedagogical and family-related. Our study examined the relationship between the division of these two groups and the parents’ attitudes towards homeschooling and the education system, their personalities and their level of education. In addition, we investigated whether the differences in the reasons for choosing homeschooling were related to the way homeschooling was carried out. Unlike most of the questions in the demographic questionnaire, the one used to establish the parents’ reasons for choosing homeschooling was open-ended. The decision to employ qualitative means to collect information on the reasons for choosing homeschooling, and to use this information to analyse the results of the closed-ended questions, was based on the view that mixed methods research is best suited to the examination of unknown phenomena. In this type of design, qualitative instruments are used to gain insights and develop working theories, which are then tested by means of quantitative measures. The qualitative paradigm is based on the premise that in order to capture people’s real and authentic experiences, we must allow them to express themselves freely. Using the texts of such free expression, it is possible to conceptualise and gain insight into their perceptions of reality. Thus, we asked the respondents to describe their reasons freely and then divided them into categories. This method allowed us to use qualitative tools to create a working theory which divided the reasons for choosing homeschooling into two main groups: pedagogical only; and both pedagogical and family-related. This working theory is actually a positive theory or, in measurement and evaluation terms, a descriptive theory; it describes ‘‘what is’’ (in contrast to a normative, or prescriptive theory, which describes ‘‘what should be’’) (Yuengert 2004; Aldrich et al. 2007; Hands 2012). After the formulation of our working theory, which suggested a division of the homeschooling parents into two groups according to the reasons they chose homeschooling (pedagogical only and both pedagogical and family-related reasons), we tested the theory by using the data collected using the closed-ended questionnaire. In other words, we examined whether the groups which emerged in the qualitative part of the research were meaningful to the examination of the quantitative data. Indeed, we discovered a connection between the division created in the qualitative part of the study and a list of factors. First, we will discuss the factors 123 314 O. Guterman, A. Neuman which are likely to be at the root of the reason for choosing homeschooling, and then we will discuss the findings concerning the connection between these reasons and the way homeschooling was carried out. With regard to the parents’ attitudes, there was no difference between the groups in their attitudes towards the educational system, but a difference between the groups was found in their attitudes regarding the influence of homeschooling on their child. Families who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons had more positive views of the impact of homeschooling on their child than did families who had chosen homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only. This finding may indicate that one’s view of the educational system is not the root of differences in the reasons for choosing homeschooling, but instead, these reasons are influenced by one’s attitude towards homeschooling and its impact on the child. Of course, it is also possible to draw the opposite conclusion: that when the reasons for choosing homeschooling are also family-related, parents notice other aspects of the contribution of homeschooling, so that their views on homeschooling are more positive than those who consider pedagogical reasons only. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of fathers’ years of education, but there was a significant difference in terms of mothers’ years of education. The mothers in families whose reasons for choosing homeschooling were both pedagogical and family-related had a higher level of education than the mothers in families who had chosen homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only. These findings correspond with previous research which showed that in the majority of families, the mother is the parent who is most involved with the children and, therefore, the most influential one (Neuman 2003; Guterman and Neuman 2014). Perhaps better-educated mothers are more aware of family-related aspects and therefore focus on them more when deciding to homeschool their children. In addition, these mothers might feel that they have taken fuller advantage of education, and therefore allow themselves more freedom to focus on aspects other than pure pedagogy. Of course, in order to understand these connections better, further research is required which replicates the findings in additional groups and examines the underlying factors. It is interesting that no personality differences were found between parents who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only and those who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons. In future research, it will be important to examine additional aspects of this subject, since in all likelihood parents’ personalities are somehow connected to their reasons for choosing homeschooling. The study we present here also considered the relationship between the reasons for choosing homeschooling and the way in which homeschooling is practised. The results indicated that parents whose reasons for choosing homeschooling were pedagogical only devoted a greater number of weekly hours to learning compared with those who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family-related reasons. It can be assumed that when a family focuses primarily on pedagogical aspects, more time and effort are dedicated accordingly, and this is expressed in the number of hours dedicated to learning. It is possible that families who choose homeschooling for family-related reasons as well dedicate more time to other 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 315 activities, such as family trips, joint preparation of meals and so on, at the cost of time and effort dedicated specifically to learning. As noted earlier, one of the accepted divisions in the literature regarding the practice of homeschooling is based on the degree of its structure. The instruments we used in our study to measure the degree of structure in home education were (1) the number of hours devoted to parent-initiated learning and (2) the degree of existence of a daily schedule. With regard to these measures, one can assume that families who chose homeschooling for both pedagogical and family reasons see learning as arising out of family activity and not just as hours devoted to structured and initiated learning, compared to families who chose homeschooling for pedagogical reasons only. Therefore, it may be that from the point of view of families who chose homeschooling for both reasons, the hours of learning reported in the research are hours of structured learning, while in fact there are additional hours of learning which are unstructured. Accordingly, the two groups of families may view the very definition of learning differently. In further research, it would be interesting to examine the connection between the reasons for choosing homeschooling and the variety of activities which take place within the family, to get a clearer picture of the relationship between these reasons and the degree to which the family puts an emphasis on different kinds of activities. Finally, it is important to take into consideration the Israeli context of the study we have presented here. In light of the dearth of research on homeschooling in Israel, most of the literature we have cited in this article refers to studies conducted in other countries, indicating international trends. However, since our study refers to homeschooling in Israel, it not only makes a start on filling a gap in research in this country, but also offers a further contribution to the knowledge about homeschooling worldwide, in particular in Europe and the US. It may be assumed that, cultural differences notwithstanding, there are similar groups of reasons – such as religious, family-related, pedagogical and others – for choosing to homeschool in different places. Therefore, it would be interesting to conduct similar studies in other countries and compare the relationships indicated with those found in the study we have presented here. Such an investigation would constitute a further stage in the comparison of homeschooling between different countries, contributing to the understanding of homeschooling from an international, and not only local, perspective. It would also be interesting to further investigate the differences among countries in terms of parents’ reasons for homeschooling, and the relationship to the type of homeschooling practised. This would include, for example, unschooling (studying topics chosen by the learner, which in Israel is likely to be associated with ‘‘naturalistic’’ homeschooling focusing on closeness to nature) and structured homeschooling (in which parents have structured goals and/ or methods) (Neuman and Guterman 2016). Despite the significance of these findings, our study has a number of limitations. First, this is a preliminary study, and it is important to also examine the data of other samples of homeschooling families. Second, the study we have presented here related to the personality and educational aspects which might underlie each family’s stated reasons for choosing homeschooling; in future research, it would be interesting to explore additional aspects which were not examined here, such as 123 316 O. Guterman, A. Neuman educational approach, parents’ past experiences with the educational system and so on. Finally, it will also be important in further research to consider aspects such as the influence of the different reasons for choosing homeschooling on the child’s social world or on family relationships, as well as their relationship with the reasons for choosing homeschooling. Despite these limitations, the study we have presented here is an important addition to research in this field. In light of the significance of the decision to homeschool, as well as the notable growth of this trend, it is essential to obtain a clear picture of the factors which are at the root of this choice. Beyond the theoretical contribution, this type of understanding can inform professionals who assist homeschooling families. Our finding that the reasons for choosing homeschooling have an impact on how homeschooling is practised further emphasises the importance of research in the field. Such research is complex, and in many cases it may require a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, but this complexity serves to add grounded information and advance our understanding of these important aspects of choosing homeschooling. References Aldrich, J. H., Alt, J. E., & Lupia, A. (2007). Positive changes in political science: The legacy of Richard D. McKelvey’s most influential writings. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2005). Choice without markets: Homeschooling in the context of private education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(4), 461–474. Barratt-Peacock, J. (2003). Australian home education: A model. Evaluation and Research in Education, 17(2–3), 101–111. Bielick, S. (2008). 1.5 million homeschooled students in the United States in 2007. Issue brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Blok, H. (2004). Performance in home schooling: An argument against compulsory schooling in the Netherlands. International Review of Education, 50(1), 39–52. Blok, H., & Karsten, S. (2011). Inspection of home education in Europe. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 138–152. Boschee, B. F., & Boschee, F. (2011). A profile of homeschooling in South Dakota. Journal of School Choice, 5(3), 281–299. Clennon, O. D. (2014). Alternative education and community engagement: Making education a priority. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Collom, E. (2005). The ins and outs of homeschooling: The determinants of parental motivations and student achievement. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 307–335. Després, B. (2013). A question of resistance to home education and the culture of school-based education. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 365–377. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge. Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K. W., Shaver, P. R., Schaaf, J. M., Quas, J. A., Lovas, G. S., et al. (2004). Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness during a stressful event. Attachment & Human Development, 6(1), 31–52. Fielding, M., & Moss, P. (2011). Radical education and the common school: A democratic alternative. London: Routledge. Gaither, M. (2009). Homeschooling in the USA: Past, present and future. Theory and Research in Education, 7(3), 331–346. Green, C. L., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2007). Why do parents homeschool? Education and Urban Society, 39(2), 264–285. 123 Different reasons for one significant choice… 317 Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2014). Old/new way to learn – Home-schooling (or the past and future of education). Paper presented at the 12th international conference on new directions in the humanities, Madrid, Spain. Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2016). Schools and emotional and behavioral problems: A comparison of school-going and homeschooled children. Journal of Educational Research. doi:10.1080/00220671. 2015.1116055. Hands, D. W. (2012). The positive-normative dichotomy and economics. In U. Mäki (Ed.), Philosophy of economics. Vol. 13 of D. Gabbay, P. Thagard and J. Woods (Eds), Handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 219–239). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hanna, L. G. (2011). Homeschooling education: Longitudinal study of methods, materials, and curricula. Education and Urban Society, 44(5), 609–631. Hiatt, D. B. (1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642–1994. School Community Journal, 4(2), 27–38. Isenberg, E. J. (2007). What have we learned about homeschooling? Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2–3), 387–409. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory—Versions 4a and 54 (Tech. Report). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. Kindsvatter, A., & Desmond, K. J. (2013). Addressing parent–child conflict: Attachment-based interventions with parents. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(1), 105–112. Kunzman, R. (2009). Understanding homeschooling: A better approach to regulation. Theory and Research in Education, 7(3), 311–330. Kunzman, R., & Gaither, M. (2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education, 2(1), 4–59. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. Merry, M. S., & Karsten, S. (2010). Restricted liberty, parental choice and homeschooling. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(4), 497–514. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2008). 1.5 Million homeschooled students in the United States in 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neuman, A. (2003). Home schooling in Israel. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel (Hebrew). Neuman, A., & Aviram, R. (2003). Homeschooling as a fundamental change in lifestyle. Evaluation and Research in Education, 17(2–3), 132–143. Neuman, A., & Aviram, A. (2008). Home schooling - A rational choice in a postmodern world or there’s a little child saying the emperor hasn’t got anything on. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(9), 185–194. Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2013). Home schooling: The ultimate form of parental involvement in their children’s education. Paper presented at the 1st international conference on Family, Education and Media in a Diverse Society. Jerusalem, Israel. Neuman, A., & Guterman, O. (2016). Structured and unstructured elective home education: A proposal for broadening the taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2016. 1174190. Noel, A., Stark, P., & Redford, J. (2013). Parent and family involvement in education. From the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2012 (NCES 2013–028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Olsen, N. B. (2008). Understanding parental motivation to home school: A qualitative case study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 33307222). Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1996). Grounded theory: Practical implementation. In J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 86–101). Leicester: PBS Books. Pilat, M. (2014). Adolescent parenthood and education: exploring alternative programs. London: Routledge. Princiotta, D., & Bielick, S. (2006). Homeschooling in the United States: 2003. Statistical analysis report (NCES 2006-042). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. 123 318 O. Guterman, A. Neuman Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. Ray, B. D. (1999). Home schooling on the threshold: A survey of research at the dawn of the new millennium. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. Ray, B. D. (2011). 2.04 million homeschool students in the United States in 2010. National Home Education Research Institute, Salem, OR. Retrieved 26 October 2011 from http://www.nheri.org/ HomeschoolPopulationReport2010.pdf. Ricci, C. (2011). Unschooling and the willed curriculum. Encounter, 24(3), 45–48. Seidel, J., & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp. 52–61). London: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Sümer, N., & Harma, M. (2015). Parental attachment anxiety and avoidance predicting child’s anxiety and academic efficacy in middle childhood. Psychological Topics, 24(1), 113–134. Taylor-Hough, D. (2010). Are all homeschooling methods created equal? Retrieved 3 December 2012 from http://charlottemasonhome.com/about/are-all-homeschooling-methods-created-equal/. Varnham, S. (2008). My home, my school, my island: Home education in Australia and New Zealand. Public Space: The Journal of Law & Social Justice, 2, 1–30. Wilhelm, G. M., & Firmin, M. W. (2009). Historical and contemporary developments in home school education. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 18(3), 303–315. Winstanley, C. (2009). Too cool for school? Gifted children and homeschooling. Theory and Research in Education, 7(3), 347–362. Yuengert, A. (2004). The boundaries of technique: Ordering positive and normative concerns in economic research. Lanham: Lexington Books. The authors Dr. Oz Guterman is a lecturer in the Department of Human Resource at Western Galilee College in Israel. His interests include several fields: nonverbal perception of emotion, factors of academic excellence among students, and homeschooling. Dr. Ari Neuman is a senior lecturer in the Department of Education at Western Galilee College in Israel, where he chairs the Education Systems Management Division. Dr Neuman’s research explores the process of choosing to homeschool, the reasons for this choice, the significance of the choice itself, and the ramifications for homeschooling families. He also explores the overall significance of the homeschooling phenomena and its role in better understanding education today and in the future. Dr Neuman is also interested in programme evaluation, an activity in which he has been engaged for more than 15 years. 123 International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Roeper Review, 39:112–120, 2017 Copyright © The Roeper Institute ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2017.1289579 Why We Blog: Homeschooling Mothers of Gifted Children Jennifer L. Jolly and Michael S. Matthews Blogs have become a go-to information resource for members of online communities. In this qualitative study we applied uses and gratifications theory (U>) to analyze the experiences and perceptions of four mothers of gifted children who maintain blogs about their homeschooling experiences. Data suggest that this novel context and population did not yield different categories of gratification; however, not all prior categories were represented among this relatively narrow sample. Results support findings from prior research in other contexts suggesting that bloggers find gratification from self-expression, social interaction, information exchange, maintaining community, and recording life events. Keywords: blogging, blogs, gifted children, gifted education, homeschooling The Internet’s exponential growth has dramatically changed the way individuals and societies communicate and share information and experiences. In 2010, the Internet had 361 million users (Chiang, Chiang, & Lin, 2013). By 2015, the number of users had increased to nearly 2 billion people worldwide. People are motivated to use the Internet for nearly as many reasons as there are users. One central mode of online sharing is the weblog (see definition later). In this exploratory study we examine one narrowly defined subpopulation of web users, mothers who use weblogs to share information and their personal experiences in the process of homeschooling gifted children. There has been relatively little research about this population, so these weblogs provide an opportunity to investigate a group of gifted students and their parents who are difficult to access via more traditional research settings. Students who are homeschooled do not attend traditional brick and mortar schools and are not typically required to participate in state testing (Murphy, 2012). The exact number of students who participate in homeschooling is difficult to establish based on the wide variation in state homeschool legislation (Jolly, Matthews, & Nester, 2013; Olmsted, 2015). Research on gifted homeschoolers is still in the early stages of development, so these mothers’ experiences with blogging provide a window into the what, how, when, and where of this particular group of students and their families. Accepted 13 December 2016. Address correspondence to Jennifer L. Jolly, PhD, The University of New South Wales, John Goodsell Building, Room 107, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. E-mail: j.jolly@unsw.edu.au BLOGGING A weblog or blog is a type of web-based publishing that provides a format for anyone to post content online (Gurzick & Lutters, 2006). The weblog, a term coined in 1997 by Jorn Berger (Miller & Shepherd, 2004), is a phenomenon that has grown exponentially over the past decade. In 2006, 36 million blogs were published, and by 2012 there were approximately 230 million blogs (Jung, Song, & Vorderer, 2012; Nielsen, 2012). Blogging quickly became an integral part of online culture (Hsu & Lin, 2008). Blogs’ potential to distribute information and influence society is evident in a number of areas. For example, blogs have altered the course of political contests, raised anonymous online diarists to mainstream popularity, and received recognition as a democratic process for distributing information. However, the majority of blogs and their authors do not have a broad impact (Trammell, Tarkowski, & Sapp, 2006). For example, among the approximately 4 million mothers in the United States who classify themselves as bloggers (Laird, 2012), only around 500 have been distinguished as being influential. To complicate the medium further, an estimated one half to two thirds of newly initiated blogs are abandoned by their authors within 2 months of their creation (Gurzick & Lutters, 2006). Still, some bloggers do persist despite their limited audience and influence, which suggests the question of why so many people continue to blog. Research to date (Chiang, Chiang, & Lin, 2013; Ekdale, Namkoong, Fung, & Perlmutter, 2010; Hollenbaugh, 2011; Pettigrew, Archer, & Harrigan, 2016; Xiaohui & Lei, 2010) suggests that bloggers persist due to a variety of reasons that include feeling WHY WE BLOG connected to others, finding information, sharing ideas and feelings, and passing time. MOMMYBLOGGING Mommyblogging is a popular blogging subcategory. These are blogs that entail “everyday experiences written up by people— women, generally—for who parenthood is a key identity component [that] provide[s] interaction and feedback” (Morrison, 2010, ¶1). Mommyblogs are “a distinct genre within the broader corpus of blogs about parenting” (Morrison, 2011, p. 38). These blogs are characterized by topics of motherhood, parenting, self-expression, and community development. Mommyblogs tend to have limited audiences, in the range of approximately 5–100 readers, with relatively few of these bloggers receiving any monetary benefits from their efforts (Morrison, 2011). Despite their relatively small readership, this group has created their own norms and culture, including their own writing style, range of acceptable content, and norms regarding the quality and quantity of posts (Baumer, Sueyoshi, & Tomlinson, 2008). Demographics of this group also are relatively specific. Mommybloggers are more likely to be well educated and of middle income or higher in comparison to the overall population. The mean household income for mommybloggers was $84,000 (in comparison to the U.S. national average of $53,000), and 52% of these mothers reported having a college or graduate degree. The average mommyblogger is 37 and White (Laird, 2012). In terms of content, some mommy blogs are focused on these mothers’ educational goals, successes, and challenges in raising their children. Also included in these narrative online diaries are advocacy efforts on behalf of their children who have face...
Purchase answer to see full attachment