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