Socialization in a Homeschooling Situation: A Review of Literature
Bachelor Thesis Educational Sciences University of Amsterdam
Anouk Verdonschot (10789650) Prof dr. M.S. Merry
Contents
ABSTRACT….………...3
INTRODUCTION………...………4
METHOD……….………...5
1. SOCIALIZATION………... ………..………...5
1.1 Definition and characteristics………...…...5
1.2 Schools and socialization……….…...6
2. HOMESCHOOLING………...8
3. IS HOMESCHOOLING BAD FOR SOCIALIZATION?...9
3.1 Concerns of the critics…….………9
3.2 Is this the whole story?.………...10
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION………..15
Abstract
In this bachelor thesis, the concerns of homeschooling critics regarding socialization are examined. Four common concerns are addressed: that homeschooled children have fewer interactions with non-familial others, that homeschooled children have poorer quality relationships with others than school-going children, that homeschooled children lack essential social skills and that homeschooled children do not develop important virtues that are developed in school. The research on homeschooler socialization is limited and suffers from methodological limitations, but the available studies indicate that homeschooled children have as much social interactions with non-familial others as institutionally schooled children. However, they interact less frequently with peers. Moreover, there is some evidence that homeschooled children generally have contact with people from a different background than their own. The results of the available research on relationship quality are inconsistent, but the studies on social skills indicate that the social skills of homeschooled children are at least as good as those of institutionally schooled children. Little can be said about the virtues of homeschooled children, as too few studies have been conducted on this topic. More research of better quality is needed to be able to reach solid conclusions on the socialization of homeschooled children. In addition, more research is needed on the effects of school education on socialization, as there is also no research that explicitly supports the claim that school is a good place to be socialized.
Keywords: homeschooling, home education, alternative education, socialization, social development, social skills, virtues
Socialization in a Homeschooling Situation
Some parents believe that school education is not the best option for their children. They deliberately choose to home school their children for a variety of reasons (Murphy, Gaither, & Gleim, 2017). Although the number of homeschooled children is rising worldwide, homeschooling is still criticized by many. One of the most important concerns of critics is that homeschooled children do not receive adequate socialization
experiences (Arai, 1999; Mayberry, Knowles, Ray, & Marlow, 1995; Murphy, 2014). Homeschooled children are stereotyped as socially awkward ‘nerdy-know-it-alls’ who have difficulty relating to others in social situations and who do not develop important virtues, such as tolerance and respect for people who are different from them, perseverance, obedience and patience (Drenovsky & Cohen, 2012; Hauseman, 2011; McCulloch, Savage, & Small, 2013; Meeks Sharick & Medlin, 2012; Romanowski, 2006; Ross, 2010).
But are these stereotypes true? What are adequate socialization experiences? Is adequate socialization characteristic for school education? And why would home schooled children not be able to develop well socially and emotionally? Advocates of home education believe that this is not only possible but
commonplace. Some even believe that home education is the only way to ensure proper socialization of children (Noel, Stark, & Redford, 2013), because in school, children have to deal with hostile peer interactions and a ‘dispiriting ideologic and moral climate’. According to them, school can make children dependent, insecure and even antisocial (Medlin, 2000).
Socio-emotional development or, more broadly, socialization, is a complex concept. It involves a range of normative and highly contested assumptions and claims of both proponents and opponents (Kunzman, 2017). It is important to assess these assumptions and claims, for these can influence both academic research and policy making as this concerns homeschooling. This bachelor thesis will therefore examine whether homeschooling is bad for socialization. First, the concepts of ‘socialization’ and
‘homeschooling’ will be discussed. Subsequently, the following questions will be discussed and answered: • Do homeschooled children have less interactions with non-familial others?
• Do homeschooled children have poorer quality relationships with others than school-going children? • Are the social skills of homeschooled children worse than those of school-going children?
• Do homeschooled children develop the virtues of being respectful to people who are different, patience, compliance to authority and perseverance?
Method
To answer the central questions of this literature review, the electronic database of the University of Amsterdam and Google Scholar were searched for potentially relevant articles. The following search terms were used (including synonyms): socialization, socialization + education, socialization theory, childhood socialization, social development, social skills, values + virtues + character, character + education, hidden curriculum, homeschooling + review, homeschooling + socialization, homeschooling + social skills,
homeschooling + moral development. Based on the summaries of the books and the abstract of the articles, a selection was made. Articles and book chapters were selected based on their relevance for the research questions. The reference lists of the book chapters and articles were searched for additional material. Finally, the reference lists of these articles were searched.
1. Socialization 1.1 Definition and characteristics
Before discussing its relationship with homeschooling, it is important to consider what is meant by the concept of socialization. Socialization is an ongoing process in which more experienced members of a particular social group help new members to develop the knowledge, skills, behavior patterns, values and motivations that they need to function effectively as a member of that group (Durkin, 1995; Grusec, 2002; Grusec, Chaparro, Johnston, & Sherman, 2014; Maccoby, 2015). The more experienced members are among others parents, teachers, siblings, peers, the school, the media, the Internet and later in life romantic partners and employers. This definition of socialization highlights that socialization normally takes place through interactions between people. These interactions can take various forms. It can take place intentionally, for example by using discipline after deviation and proactive techniques, but it can also happen less consciously. For example, children can be socialized by observing and imitating the behavior of role models such as parents, teachers and peers. Also, they learn from the routines and rituals that are used in a culture, from nonverbal displays of emotion and from the styles of interaction between the people involved in the socialization process. These are all bidirectional processes: people do not simply internalize the rules of behavior, beliefs and attitudes of their group. They also influence the agents of socialization and the
socialization process themselves (Grusec & Hastings, 2015; Laible, Thompson, & Froimson, 2015). Ideally, socialization has positive outcomes, such as prosocial and cooperative behavior and tolerance and respect for others. However, socialization can also have negative outcomes. Peer influences, for example, have been found to explain substantial variance in smoking, drug use, and delinquent behaviors (Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2013; Casey, Jones, & Somerville, 2011; Steinberg, 2008). Moreover, socialization is a normative concept: one can be well or poorly socialized. Children are well socialized when they possess the skills, behavior patterns and values that they need to function effectively as a member of the major groups that they encounter (Maccoby, 2015). Which skills and which virtues these are, will be discussed below.
Social skills. Social skills can be defined as ‘specific behaviors that result in positive social interactions and encompass both verbal and non-verbal behaviors necessary for effective interpersonal
communication’ (Elliott & Gresham, as cited in Rao, Beidel, & Murray, 2008). Examples of social skills are smiling and making eye contact, asking and responding to questions, and giving and acknowledging
compliments during a social exchange (Rao et al., 2008). Social skills in childhood have consistently been linked to positive developmental outcome, including peer acceptance, academic achievement, and mental health (Hartup, 1989). As the definition of socialization indicates, which social skills are deemed necessary differs per reference group. For example, behaviors acquired within the family will not necessarily serve children well in other settings (Allen, 1989; Harris, 2005). Therefore, Harris (2005) stated that for adjustment in social behavior, it is to the child’s advantage to use as much information about the larger world as possible. A useful concept to explain this idea is the concept ‘repertoire of practice’ (Rogoff, Moore, Correa-Chávez, & Dexter, 2015). Children engage in different forms of participation as they move across different settings (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) and by doing so, build repertoires of practice. These are ‘the formats they are likely to employ in upcoming situations, based on their own prior experience in similar settings’. Contrary to the assumption that skills should generalize broadly, Rogoff et al. (2015) believe that children have to learn which strategies work in different circumstances. They call this appropriate generalization. But in order to develop a repertoire of practice and learn how to generalize strategies appropriately, a child needs
opportunities and access to participate in settings and activities in which particular formats are employed (Rogoff, et al., 2015).
Values, virtues, character traits. At least as complex is the question concerning which values and virtues children should develop to be able to function competently later in life. Values are ‘desirable, abstract, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives and as criteria they use to select, justify, and evaluate actions, people, and events’ (Schwartz, as cited by Kuczynski & Knafo, 2014). Although the meaning of most values is similar across cultures, the importance attributed to these values varies
substantially across cultures (e.g. Schwarz & Rubel, 2005) and from one socialization agent to another (e.g. Knafo & Schwartz, 2001). ‘The ultimate evidence for what a person values lies in their actions’ (Crossan, Mazutis, & Seijts, 2013) and therefore, it does not make sense to talk about values without discussing character traits and virtues (Lambek, 2008). Character traits are ‘relatively long-term stable disposition to act in distinctive ways. For example, a kind person is disposed to act kindly and an honest person is disposed to act honestly (Harman, 1999). Virtues are ‘the character traits that are necessary to pursue what is good’ (Fowers, 2008; Mintz, 1996). What is considered to be ‘good’ depends on what is valued (Crossan et al., 2013). In other words: values determine which character traits are considered as virtuous. Which character traits are considered to be virtuous by the opponents of school socialization and the critics of homeschooling will be discussed in the next section.
1.2 Schools and socialization
Proponents of school socialization recognize that the school is not always a pleasant experience, but they mainly focus on the positive aspects. According to them, school is the best place for a child to develop social skills and virtues. In what follows, we will see why.
Social skills. As already mentioned above, children have to learn which social strategies work in different circumstances by developing repertoires of practice. In order to develop such a repertoire, a child needs opportunities and access to participate in settings and activities in which particular formats are employed (Rogoff, et al., 2015). That is why ‘children have to look beyond the nuclear family, to a world inhabited by people who are not their close relatives and who are not motivated by kinship to accept them’ to succeed in life (Harris, 2005). For hundreds of millions of children around the world, the first significantly different social setting is the school. Schools provide children with unique social experiences for at least two reasons (Schaffer, 1996). First, schools provide children with the opportunity to interact with non-familial others, and in particular, peers. Interactions with peers are different from interactions with parents or teachers, because peers have the same social power. Their relationship is egalitarian in nature and the interactions between them are reciprocal rather than complementary. This is called a horizontal relationship. In horizontal relationships, children can learn the skills that can only be acquired among equals, such as skills that involve cooperation and competition, sharing or how to cope with hostility and bullying. According to Schaffer (1996) these unique functions of horizontal relationships cannot be fulfilled as effectively by vertical relationships, which are relationships with individuals who have greater knowledge and power. In equal power
relationships, children have greater control over outcomes. This enables them to better advocate for themselves. Moreover, it provides them offer multiple opportunities for witnessing the social strategies of others, see how for these are effective and learn what behavior is appropriate for children of their age. Also, peers are more likely to give children unambiguous feedback. Peers evaluate each other constantly. This teaches children what behavior is seen as appropriate and how to deal with evaluation. Moreover, it is thought that children become aware of the dominant culture by interacting with non-familial others (Arai, 1999; Jackson, 1965; Weinstein, in Salmon, 1979).
Virtues. Furthermore, it is thought that the interaction with non-familial others at school makes children more tolerant. Moreover, schools provide children with opportunities to develop virtues that are deemed necessary for life in hierarchical, bureaucratic settings. At school, children have to deal with rules, routines and regulations and with delay, denial and interruptions. Classrooms are crowded and in order to make processes run smoothly, rules are needed: children are not allowed to disrupt things in class, have to do their homework, et cetera. According to Durkheim (as cited in Kentli, 2009) “it is through the practice of school discipline that we can inculcate the spirit of discipline in the child”. Schools, just like most working environments have a hierarchical structure and children have to respect authority. Furthermore, because of the crowded conditions of classrooms, students constantly experience delay. They have to deal with delay when they have to wait for their turn, wait for the lesson to start and wait before they can ask a question or give an answer and when they want to use materials that are already in use by other children. Furthermore, school children are denied and interrupted constantly. For example, they are denied when they are not allowed to ask a question or carry out a particular activity and delayed when the bell rings or when the teacher is needed elsewhere. According to the proponents of school socialization, this teaches children to delay gratification, respect authority and be patient. Another important part of education at schools is evaluation. Children have to
learn how to deal with that. According to the proponents of school socialization, this teaches them to
persevere and to value individual achievement. Finally, schools and teachers tend to adopt a time perspective that is future-orientated, impersonal, planned and built on the notion of delayed gratification. This perspective is future-oriented in that it is focused on goals in the future, impersonal in that it does not take into account the needs and wishes of the pupils, and built on the notion of delayed gratification because it is often unclear what the relevance is of what is learned. Children learn that it is important to know ‘for later’. It is important for children to adopt this time perspective, because it prepares them for participation in the labor market, where this time perspective is also present. Moreover, people who do not adopt this time perspective are often seen as lazy, careless, impulsive and uninvolved (Brint, 2006; Jackson, 1966; Jackson, 1968; Meighan & Siraj-Blatchford, 1997).
2. Homeschooling
Having discussed the subject of socialization, we will now address the definition and characteristics of homeschooling. Homeschooling or home education is the education of children in and around the home, deliberately arranged by their parents or their guardians (Gaither, 2017; Petrie, 1998; Safran, 2010). This definition highlights that homeschooling is a deliberately chosen alternative to institutional schools and that this term does not apply to the education of children who are not able to attend school or who stay at home for other reasons. Homeschoolers do not form a uniform category. They differ in their demographic backgrounds, their motivations to homeschool, their teaching styles, the amount of children and period of time that they homeschool and the support of others that they receive in educating their children.
American research indicates that homeschoolers are from all races, socioeconomic statuses, family types and religious orientations, but they are usually white, middle class or above and Evangelical or mainstream protestant. Furthermore, most homeschooled children are from families with a father who has a paid job and a mother who stays at home to teach them (Mayberry et al., 1995). Parents choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons. Among these are religious values, dissatisfaction with the institutional alternatives, being able to respond to the academic and pedagogic needs of children, developing close families, but also concerns about socialization (Collom, 2005; Collom & Mitchell, 2005; Murphy, Gaither, & Gleim, 2017).
A parents’ values, beliefs and reasons to homeschool are often reflected in their teaching style. Teaching styles can differ considerably among parents. On one end of the spectrum are the parents who educate their children at home in a manner that is similar to education at school. They teach their children using an existing curriculum and set times (Neuman & Guterman, 2016). On the other end are the adherents of the unschooling movement. These parents teach their children through everyday life experiences, play and social interactions. Most unschoolers consider evaluation, whether in the form of adult commentary or standardized testing, as disruptive to learning. The most extreme adherents of the unschooling movement do not attempt to motivate, guide direct or monitor their child’s learning (Gray & Riley, 2013; Wheatley, 2009).
Most parents do not educate their children in isolation. Homeschoolers collaborate with others in a variety of ways. Much homeschooling is short-lived. A considerable number of children is only
fulltime. Some homeschooled children have siblings who go to school and other register with a private or public school for some of their subjects. Also, there are cooperative programs between school districts and homeschoolers (Lines, 2000). Another option is following online long distance courses. The majority of these online programs are primarily connected to publicly and privately run schools (Aurini & Davies, 2005; Isenberg, 2007; Lines, 2000; Mann, 2017). Even when families have no connections with schools at all, most parents do not educate their children all by themselves. Homeschooling parents frequently help each other to fulfill their task. For example, they can be members of a support group, in which they share ideas and information and encourage each other. Also, there are homeschoolers who buy and store resources together and who plan activities together. Lastly, some homeschooling parents receive help from other homeschooling parents with more instructional expertise. Perhaps the most formal type of collaboration is a co-op. In co-ops, different homeschooling families rent a space together and teach their children a jointly developed curriculum. Sometimes they even hire a tutor (Collom, 2005; Lois, 2006; Mayberry et al., 1995; Medlin, 1994; Safran, 2009; Safran, 2010).
3. Is homeschooling bad for socialization? 3.1 Concerns of the critics
Although homeschooling is becoming increasingly common worldwide, it continues to be strongly criticized (Medlin, 2013). Critics rarely wish to ban homeschooling, but typically focus only on the negative. One of the most important concerns of critics is that homeschooled children do not receive adequate
socialization experiences (Arai, 1999; Mayberry et al., 1995; Murphy, 2014). Homeschooled children are stereotyped as socially awkward ‘nerdy-know-it-alls’ who have difficulty relating to others in social situations (Drenovsky & Cohen, 2012; Hauseman, 2011; McCulloch, Savage, & Schmall, 2013; Romanowski, 2006). The assumption underlying this idea is that homeschooling limits the exchange by which social skills and norms are developed. Different situations and settings require different social skills and children need to learn to which strategies work in different situations (Rogoff et al., 2015). Therefore, children need to develop ‘repertoires of practice’, which are the formats that they are likely to employ in upcoming situations, based on their own prior experience in similar settings’. But in order to develop a repertoire of practice and learn how to generalize strategies appropriately, a child needs opportunities and access to participate in settings and activities in which specific formats are employed (Rogoff, et al., 2015) and critics think homeschooled children lack this access and these opportunities, because they are mostly at home with their family. In particular, homeschooled children are thought to have too little contact with non-familial peers. Contact with non-familial peers is seen as essential for the social development of children because of its egalitarian nature. Moreover, critics are concerned that homeschooled children do not become aware of the dominant culture, because they meet too few non-familial others. Because of this, they develop a biased view of the world and will not know how to behave in an appropriate way. This will disadvantage them when they enter wider society (Arai, 1999; Medlin, 2013). Another concern of the critics of homeschooling is that children do not get the opportunity to develop certain virtues that are deemed important. It is thought that children do not
learn to respect people who are different from them, because they only interact with people who are like them (Arai,1999; Ross, 2010). Also, opponents argue homeschooled children are denied the opportunities to develop virtues that are seen as important for life in bureaucratic settings. They argue homeschoolers do not develop the virtues of perseverance, obedience and patience. At school, children develop these virtues because they are constantly evaluated and have to deal with denial, delay and interruption. At home, children are less likely to experience situations like that, because homes are not as crowded as classrooms and parents are better able to address their needs immediately (Jackson, 1966; Jackson, 1968; Meighan & Siraj-Blatchford, 1997).
3.2 Is this the whole story?
What are we to make of these claims? Do children have fewer interactions with non-familial peers and with others who are different from them? Are their social skills worse than those of their school-going counterparts? Do they lack the appropriate social virtues? Let us look as each of these more closely.
Interactions with non-familial others. Good-quality empirical research that examines the socialization of homeschooled children is scarce. Homeschooling has mainly been investigated through qualitative studies. The few quantitative studies on this topic mainly used self-report and parental report and used small, non-random samples (Kunzman & Gaither, 2013; Murphy, 2014). Recruiting participants for studies on homeschooler socialization is difficult, among others because homeschoolers do not want to come to the attention of the authorities, and families who are willing to participate are often over-researched (McKinley, et al., 2007). Most of the available studies indicate that homeschooled children are exposed to many different social settings (Basham, Merrifield & Hepburn, 2007; Kunzman & Gaither, 2013; Medlin, 2000; Medlin, 2013; Murphy, 2014). As already mentioned in the previous chapter, most parents do not educate their children in isolation. Their children rely not solely on them, but are in contact with other people via support groups, co-ops, cooperative programs between homeschoolers and school districts, online
programs for homeschoolers and some homeschoolers are given classes by tutors (Collom, 2005; Lines, 2000; Lois, 2006; Mayberry et al., 1995; Medlin, 1994; Ray, 2000; Safran, 2009; Safran, 2010). Furthermore, several reviews of the literature on homeschoolers socialization concluded that homeschoolers were routinely engaged in extracurricular activities that provided opportunities for group interactions (Basham, et al., 2007; Kunzman & Gaither, 2013; Medlin, 2000; Medlin, 2013; Murphy, 2014). A review of Basham et al. (2007) indicated that the average home schooled student was regularly involved in eight social activities outside the home. These included afternoon and weekend programs with public school students, such as sports, scouts, church groups, ballet, Little League, neighborhood play, part-time employment, and voluntary work, and day-time field trips and cooperative programs with groups of other homeschooled students. Likewise, Medlin (2000) in his review of eighteen studies on homeschooler socialization, concluded that homeschooled children were involved in ‘many different kinds of activities with many different kinds of people’. Two of the studies that he reviewed even indicated that homeschooled children participated in more extracurricular activities than conventionally schooled children. Medlin (2000) suggested that this might be because they have flexible schedules, use their time more efficiently and have therefore more time. Also, a study of Medlin (1997)
indicated that homeschooled children regularly had contact with people from a different socioeconomic, religious or ethnic background than their own.
As already mentioned, most of the research on social interactions of homeschoolers relies on self- and or parental report. An exception is the research of Chatham-Carpenter (1994). Chatham-Carpenter (1994) compared the social networks of 21 homeschooled children with the social networks of 20 peers who attended public schools. All participants were asked to record all the interactions that they had over a month’s period of time. They had to write down every interaction that lasted longer than two minutes. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the number of social interactions that homeschooled and conventionally schooled children had. However, the composition of the social network differed between the groups. Children from public schools had more contacts with friends and peers than homeschooled children. Homeschooled children had more contacts with both older and younger people and with family than public schooled children. Other studies have replicated the result that homeschooled children interact less frequently with peers
(Delahooke, 1986; Guterman and Neuman, 2016a; Seo, 2009; Shirkey, 1987). The results of the study of Guterman and Neuman (2016a) also suggested that homeschooled children interacted more often with school-going children than with other homeschooled children.
In conclusion, the studies discussed above indicate that homeschooled children in general are not socially isolated and meet people who are different from them. Nevertheless, it is possible that homeschooled children have less contact with peers and more contact with people from different ages and with their family. Furthermore, it is important for the psychological wellbeing of homeschooled children to meet with other children, but these do not necessarily have to be school-going children. However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution, as the amount of research on this topic is small and because most researchers used self-report and parental report and used small, non-random samples.
Quality of the social relationships. Homeschooled children might have less contact with peers and more contact with people from different ages and with their family, but of course not all peers are friends, and not all friendships are of good quality. It is important to consider the quality of peer relationships, since research suggests that having problematic friendships might be more detrimental to well-being than the absence of supportive friendships (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). How the quality of the interactions that homeschooled children have with others is less clear. While the research on this subject is scarce, a study of Reavis and Zakrinski (2005) indicated that homeschooled students had the same number of close friends and that their friendships are of similar quality. Moreover, it showed that homeschooled children had “more positive attitudes toward teachers/coaches, more positive relationships with their parents, higher self-esteem, and more positive interpersonal relationships in general” than conventionally schooled children. Research from McKinley, et al. (2007) also showed positive results. They compared the friendship quality and feelings of loneliness of 53 homeschooled children, 49 private-schooled children and 48 public-schooled children between the ages of 8 and 12. They used three scales. The findings showed no significant differences between the three groups in the amount of peer network loneliness and peer dyadic loneliness. Peer network loneliness is ‘loneliness associated with peer group isolation’. Peer dyadic loneliness is ‘loneliness associated with the
absence of a close, enduring, emotionally intimate friendship with a specific other peer’. Furthermore, no significant differences between the groups were found in social adequacy, subjective estimates of peer status, and appraisals of whether relationship characteristics were being met. Moreover, the results showed that private- and public-schooled children reported experiencing significantly more conflict than homeschooled children in their closest friendships. In addition, homeschooled children reported more affective bonds with their closest friends than public-schooled did. However, the results of a follow-up survey of Chatham-Carpenter (1994) showed that public schoolers felt closer to their contacts than home schoolers did overall. Public schoolers more often went to their contacts for advice and more often shared their inner feelings with the person. Apart from that, parents were ranked higher than peer friends on closeness and supportiveness for both homeschooled public schooled children. Moreover, Shirkey (1987) found that some of his homeschooled participants who had previously attended conventional schools missed their friends who were still attending school and felt left out in school dances and parties.
In order to clarify these inconsistent results, more research is needed on the quality of the relationships of homeschooled children. Also, little is known about how the nature of social activity of
homeschooled children affects their development. One recent study has provided insight into this relationship. Guterman and Neuman (2016a) examined the quantity and character of the social interactions of 65
homeschooled children and their influence on the children’s emotional and behavioral problems. They were 6 to 12 years of age. The results showed that children who met more often with other homeschooled children had a lower level of internalizing and externalizing problems. Internalizing problems refer to symptoms of anxiety and depression, introversion and social detachment, and somatic complaints. Externalizing behavior refers to problems such as aggressive behavior, delinquency, violation of rules, and hurting others. Also, children with more siblings showed less externalizing problems. Such a correlation did not exist between the quantity of social meetings with school-going children and externalizing problems. Guterman and Neuman (2017a) suggest that this might be because interacting with people who have a similar background reduces social isolation and enables the child to express their emotions, thoughts and desires to other children who are coping with the same difficulties, deliberations and feelings. Hence, these findings suggest that it is important for homeschooled children to meet with other children, but these do not necessarily have to be school
attending children. In fact, in light of the research findings we have, it might be better for their psychological wellbeing to meet with children who are homeschooled too.
All in all, the research on the quality of the relationships of homeschoolers is inconclusive. Some studies suggest that homeschooled children have friendship of similar quality or even experience more positive interpersonal relationships and less conflict. Other studies report that homeschooled students felt less closed to their contacts, missed their friends who were still attending school and felt out in school dances and parties. The research on this topic suffers from the same methodological limitations as mentioned previously. Therefore, more research is needed to be able to draw stable conclusions.
Socialization of homeschooled children.
Social skills. Besides investigating the interaction processes of homeschooled children, researchers have studied the socialization outcomes of homeschooled children. Overall, the research on the socialization outcomes of homeschooled children is positive (Basham et al., 2007; Kunzman & Gaither, 2013; Murphy, 2014; Medlin, 2000; Medlin, 2013). One element of socialization is the development of social skills. According to Medlin (2000) the first studies in which the social skills of homeschooled children were assessed, used ‘somewhat dubious measures’, but they all indicated that homeschooled children did not have worse social skills than other children. In a follow-up study Medlin (2013) discussed six studies in which the social skills of homeschooled children were assessed using the Social Skills Rating System of Gresham and Elliot (1990). This is a ‘broad, multi-rater assessment of socially acceptable learned behaviors that enable a person to interact effectively with others’ (Gresham & Elliot, 1990). It uses parental report to measure cooperation, assertion, responsibility, self-control and problem behaviors and self-report of the students to measure cooperation, assertion, empathy and self-control. The norms are based on a sample of more than 4000 children attending conventional schools. Medlin’s findings suggested that homeschooling children were at least as good as the social skills of other children and probably better. However, the results of the self-reports of the homeschooled children were inconclusive. They rated their social skills higher than the SSRS norms, but as high or sometimes lower than control groups of conventionally schooled children.
A study that did not rely on parental or self-reporting is that of Shyers (1992). He compared the behavioral problems of 70 children who had always been homeschooled with those of 70 children who had always attended schools. The children, who were aged 8-10 years, were observed in free play by using the Direct Observation Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenback & Edelbrock, in Shyers, 1992). The results revealed that homeschooled children showed significantly fewer problem behaviors than their peers, who scored above the normal range for national populations of the same age.
More recently, Guterman and Neuman (2016b) compared the self-reported emotional and behavioral problems of 36 school-going and 65 homeschooled children, measured by three questionnaires. It showed that the level of externalizing problem behavior was higher among children who attended school than among their homeschooled peers. Yet these differences between the groups only existed in Grades 3-4 and 5-6 and not among the children in Grades 1-2.
All in all, it can be tentatively concluded from the results of these studies that appropriate social skills can be developed outside the school. But again, the number of studies that focus on the social skills of
homeschooled children is small and the studies that have been conducted were of correlational design, which makes it impossible to rule out alternative explanations. Moreover, the researchers mainly used non-random samples, used mainly self-report and parental report and did not describe background characteristics of the participating families.
Virtues. Research on the virtues of homeschooled children is also scarce. Two studies that focused on the values of tolerance and respect toward people who are different, suggested that homeschooled children were more tolerant of others than school-going children.
A study of White, Moore and Squires (2009) indicated that students who had always been
homeschooled scored higher on the personality traits of Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness of the Big Five personality taxonomy. The Big Five is the dominant personality taxonomy in the field of
personality psychology today (Digman, 1990). It consists in the following traits: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Students who score high on agreeableness ‘are thought to possess characteristics such as tender-mindedness, trust, altruism and modesty, and have a more pro-social and communal orientation towards others’. Persons who score high on conscientiousness tend to be well-organized, self-disciplined, task and goal directed and tend to delay gratification and follow moral codes and norms. Students who score high on openness to experience are thought to be open to new experiences, ideas and values. They are also viewed as more independent and liberal. The latter finding stands in contrast to the belief of homeschooling opponents that homeschooled children take a negative view of values and beliefs that are different from theirs.
Cheng (2014) compared political tolerance levels of three groups of undergraduate students who were attending a fundamentalist Christian university. The groups consisted of students who were previously homeschooled, students who attended a private school and students who attended a public school. They had varying levels of exposure to both types of education. To compare these 304 students, the content-controlled political tolerance scale was used (Sullivan, Pierson and Marcus, 1982). The findings indicated that students with homeschooling backgrounds were more politically tolerant.
These two studies show that the concern of critics that homeschooled children are less tolerant and respecting, is not a foregone conclusion. Moreover, the underlying assumption that children do acquire these virtues because they do not meet people who are different from them was contradicted by the of Medlin (1997) that was mentioned before. The homeschooled students in his study had regular contact with people from a different socioeconomic, religious, or ethnic background than their own. However, three studies are not enough to be able to generalize the results to the broader population of homeschooled children.
Another concern of the critics, was whether homeschooled students acquire the virtues that are deemed necessary to prepare children for the hierarchical, bureaucratic settings that they will encounter later in life. On this topic, even less research has been conducted. One of the characteristics that proponents of school socialization consider a virtue is compliance with authority. Homeschool critics are concerned that homeschooled children do not learn how to comply with authority at home. Meeks et al. (2012) measured whether this concern is valid by observing the compliance of 24 homeschooled children while they worked on academic tasks with their mothers. The average age of the children was 12.2 years old. The mothers were instructed to give their children both positive (‘do this’) and negative (‘don’t do that’) directives during the task. In addition, the mothers completed a questionnaire on the compliance of their children in general. The findings indicated that the compliance with the instructions of the mothers was high. Hence, this study does not support the concern of critics that homeschoolers to not learn to comply. However, it can be questioned whether compliance with a mother is comparable to compliance with non-familial authority figures, such as teachers.
Other studies did not directly measure the virtues that are deemed important to prepare children for life in bureaucratic settings, but measured actual participation in society. Two studies suggest that parents deliberately make efforts to expose their children to ‘the real world’. Neuman and Guterman (2016) had in-depth interviews with 30 Israelian homeschooling mothers of children of primary school age. The mothers stated that they wanted to expose children to the ‘real world’ and teach them skills and tools that would help them function effectively as adults in the future. Likewise, 10 rural families with middle schooled children that were interviewed by Johnson (1991) deliberately placed their children in situations where they could function as valued members of society.
Other studies investigated the social adjustment of homeschooled children in college and adulthood. These studies showed that homeschooled students who went to college had no difficulties in adapting to the college culture. This conclusion was based on the students’ own perception and on more objective measures, such as the number of extracurricular activities in which they were involved (Jones, 2010; Sutton &
Galloway, 2000).
Critics of homeschooling also expressed the concern that homeschooled rely too much on the values, norms and way of life of their parents. The findings of Uecker (2008) contradict this concern. Using the data of the National Survey of Youth and Religion, Uecker (2008) examined the effects of Catholic schooling, Protestant schooling, and homeschooling on adolescents' religious lives and test three mechanisms through which these schooling strategies might influence religiosity: friendship networks, network closure, and adult mentors. The results showed that the relationship between schooling strategies and adolescent religiosity did not differ for homeschoolers and children who went to public school.
All in all, too little research has been conducted on virtues of homeschooled children to reach solid conclusions. The available studies contradict the concerns of the opponents of home education. The
homeschooled children that participated in the studies discussed above scored higher on the personality traits openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, were more politically tolerant, learned to comply to their mothers and were successfully integrated in the college culture. Moreover, their parents deliberately made efforts to expose them to the real world and the relationship between schooling strategies and adolescent religiosity did not differ for homeschoolers and children who went to public school. But again, the reliability and generalizability of these results is limited.
Conclusion and discussion
In this review of literature, it was examined whether homeschooling is bad for socialization. Before this question could be answered, four questions were addressed: ‘Do homeschooled children have less interactions with non-familial others?’ ‘Do homeschooled children have poorer quality relationships with others than school-going children?’ ‘Are the social skills of homeschooled children worse than those of school-going children?’ and ‘Do homeschooled children develop the virtues of being respectful to people who are different, patience, compliance to authority and hard work? The available research indicated that
settings and regularly have contact with people from a different socioeconomic, religious or ethnic
background than their own. Homeschooled children had as much social contacts as school-going children, but they interacted less frequently with peers. Furthermore, there is evidence that it is important for the
psychological wellbeing of homeschooled children to meet with other children, but these do not necessarily have to be school-going children. The results of the studies on relationship quality are less clear. Some studies suggested that homeschooled children had friendships of similar quality or even experienced more positive interpersonal relationships and less conflict. Other studies reported that homeschooled students felt less close to their contacts, missed their friends who were still attending school and felt left out in school dances and parties. Moreover, the findings suggested that the social skills of homeschooled children were at least as good as those of conventionally schooled peers and that homeschooled children displayed less behavioral problems than their school-going peers. With regard to the question about virtues, too little research has been conducted to answer it properly. Nevertheless, the homeschooled children that participated in the few studies on this topic scored higher on the personality traits openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, were more politically tolerant, learned to comply to their mothers and were successfully integrated in the college culture. Moreover, their parents deliberately made efforts to expose them to the real world and the relationship between schooling strategies and adolescent religiosity did not differ for homeschoolers and children who went to public school.
However, most of the studies on homeschooler socialization are qualitative studies. The few
quantitative studies on this topic suffer from methodological limitations. First, the research designs that were used are not suitable to conclude there were any causal relationships. To be able to make causal conclusions, it is necessary to conduct experimental studies. This is impossible, as it would be unfeasible and unethical to randomly assign children to a certain type of schooling. As a result, there are may be confounding variables that influence the relationship between homeschooling and social interaction (McKinley, et al., 2007). For example, it cannot be concluded that the homeschooled children in the study of White et al. (2009) scored higher on the personality traits openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness because they were
homeschooled. It is possible that the causality lies in a reverse direction and that students who have a more open, agreeable and conscientious character are more likely to be homeschooled.
Secondly, background information of the participating families was often lacking. It is important to mention these background characteristics, because homeschooling parents do not form a uniform group and because most researchers used small, non-random samples, which might result in selection bias. This threatens both the internal validity and the external validity. Confounders cannot be ruled out and the generalizability of the findings is limited. For example, the relationship between homeschooling and socialization might be different for homeschooled children who are only homeschooled for a period of their life than for children who have always been homeschooled. Moreover, this relationship might be different for children whose home education is very structured than for children who are taught through everyday life experiences, play and social interactions. When mainly families with certain characteristics participate, this gives a distorted picture.
Thirdly, most studies used self-report and parental report. The disadvantages of self- and parental reports as measures are that parents and children might not be able to assess their own abilities accurately, or give socially desired answers. It is in the interest of homeschooling parents and children to report that they do not have problems with socialization, because homeschooling is strongly criticized. They might be afraid that negative research results will harm their position as homeschoolers and therefore describe their own or their children’s socialization as better than it actually is. The same applies to the researchers who investigate homeschooler socialization. A substantial part of the studies were conducted by investigators who are associated with home education, or who are at least highly sympathetic to it (Monk, 2004). As a result, they might be biased and it is possible that this has influenced the way in which they carried out the research.
All in all, there is evidence against the claim that homeschooling is not bad for socialization, but due to the limitations mentioned above, this is not incontestable. But neither is the underlying assumption of this claim that schools are the best place for children to be socialized. This assumption remains largely
unquestioned. It is deemed common-sense that school is necessary for healthy child development, but there is little evidence, and no research that explicitly supports this claim (Monk, 2004). Opponents of homeschooling often make hypothetical claims about what might happen when children are homeschooled and compare this to what should happen at schools (Blok, Merry and Karsten, 2017). That is an unfair comparison.
Homeschooled children are not all isolated and socially awkward and children attending school are not all friendly, prosocial and cooperating.
Not only is there no evidence that supports the claim that school is the best place to be socialized, the underlying assumptions of this claim are also controversial. It is thought that children automatically develop the desired social skills and virtues when they attend school and interact with other children. That idea is too simple. As already stated in chapter one, peer socialization, like socialization in general, takes place through mechanisms such as proactive techniques, observing and imitating the behavior of role models, routines and rituals that are used, nonverbal displays of emotion, the styles of interaction between people involved in the process. These are complex, bidirectional processes and these processes do not necessarily have positive outcomes. This is illustrated by the fact that worldwide, more than one in three students between the ages of 13 and 15 experience bullying on a regular basis (Unicef, 2014). Moreover, adolescents with antisocial peers are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior and are at higher risk for conduct disorder than adolescents without antisocial peers. Furthermore, friendships with aggressive peers can increase children’s aggressive behavior towards other children. Also, risk-taking behavior, such as drinking reckless driving and substance abuse, is more likely to occur in the presence of peers (Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2013; Casey, Jones, & Somerville, 2011; Steinberg, 2008). Whether peer interaction leads to positive or negative outcomes depends on multiple factors. Among others, it depends on temperamental characteristics, cognitive and social cognitive skills, the pattern of childrearing and the guidance of adults and also on the behavior and the values of peers that they interact with (Chen, Chang, & He, 2003; Clark and Ladd, 2000; Maxwell, 2002; Mize &
Pettit,1997). These factors also influence each other. This makes the influence that peers have on each other very complex. For example, children tend to form groups that consist of individuals who are similar to them, a
process that is called selective association (Brown & Larson, 2009), and friends tend to reinforce preexisting similarities. That is, children who tend to show positive social behavior are likely to become friends with children who tend to show positive behavior as well and they reinforce this positive behavior in each other. In contrast, children who tend to show deviant behavior seek friends that also tend to show deviant behavior and they reinforce this deviant behavior in each other (Hamm, 2000; Maxwell, 2002).
The assumption that children become more tolerant of people who are different from them simply by interacting with them is also flawed. The reasoning is that in schools, children meet people from other cultural backgrounds, with other religions and with other values, norms and lifestyles. Because of this, they better understand people who are different from them and they will be more tolerant of them and respect them. However, many schools are highly segregated. Segregation is ‘a measure of the unevenness in the distribution of individual characteristics between organizational units, such as jobs and schools’ (Karsten, 2010). It is caused by processes of residential segregation, supply and demand on the local school market such as parental choice, school profiling and admission rules, and general selection processes in education, such as early selection and tracking (Karsten, 2010). Moreover, as mentioned before, children are more likely to form groups with children who are similar to them than with children who have different backgrounds, values and norms. The peer group of schoolchildren consists of individuals who share socially relevant characteristics, such as age, gender, ethnicity, social class, abilities and interests (Brown & Larson, 2009; Espelage & Holt, 2003). Even if children have contact with people who are different from them, this is not automatically sufficient to reduce prejudice. According to the contact theory of Allport (1954) four conditions must be met in order to improve intergroup relations. These are having an equal status, having shared goals, coöperation and support from authorities. Later, a fifth condition was added: getting to know each other personally. In schools, the satisfaction of these conditions is not self-evident (Agirdag, 2016).
The claim that school is the best place for children to develop the virtues that are deemed necessary to prepare children for life in bureaucratic settings is also controversial. The critics of school socialization and the proponents of home education do not deny that it is important to learn to be obedient and patient, but they do not consider these traits as desirable in all situations and do think these are the most important character traits. Other traits, such as creativity, curiousness, inquisitiveness, being critical, and thinking out-of-the box are at least as important to them. According to critics, compliance to authority is not always compatible with critical judgement. Moreover, when teachers are very controlling, this provides students with the opportunity to develop the virtue of obedience, but research has also shown that students who are taught in a controlling manner lose initiative and learn less effectively, especially when learning requires conceptual, creative processing (Gatto, 2009; Kunzman, 2017; Medlin, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
In addition, schools, with their performance-based character might provide students with opportunities to develop the virtue of perseverance, but this performance-based character can also have negative
consequences. Several studies revealed that academic and social demands such as constant evaluation, intensive investment in homework and preparation for tests, discipline, adult expectations of success and social pressures can cause stress in students (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1992; Greene, 1988; Heubeck &
O’Sullivan, 1998). Moreover, research has shown that also threats, deadlines, directives, pressured evalua- tions, and imposed goals diminish intrinsic motivation. Humans are intrinsically motivated when they do something because they inherently enjoy it and the factors mentioned above diminish this because they develop an external perceived locus of causality. This means that they carry out actions because someone or something else outside is influencing them (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Furthermore, students might have the opportunities to develop virtues such as perseverance at school, but they do not automatically exploit these opportunities. Children can also develop negative strategies to deal with the demands of school. Examples of such negative strategies are faking involvement, quitting and ‘right answerism’. ‘Right answerism’ means that pupils develop the idea that learning means finding the right answers and that the way of obtaining it is less important. As a consequence, they take a negative view of doubt and reservation and find creative ways to obtain the answer and please the teacher, such as cheating (Holt, 1969; Jackson, 1971). This conflicts with the virtues of curiousness, inquisitiveness and critical and out-of-the box thinking.
School education can have other unintended negative consequences for socialization. Erickson’s concept of ‘hegemonic practices’ is useful to explain this. Hegemonic practices are “routine actions and unexamined beliefs [in school culture] that are consonant with the cultural system of meaning and ontology within which it makes sense to take certain actions, entirely without malevolent intent, that nonetheless systematically limit the life changes of members of stigmatized groups” (Erickson, 1987). An example is that the desired time perspective in schools is future-orientated, impersonal and planned and built on the notion of delayed gratification. Such a time perspective fits well with the way in which children of the white, middle class dominant culture are raised. Children who are raised in working class families are more often used to a time perspective that is present-orientated, personal and spontaneous and that implies immediate gratification. Also, children who are raised in families with another ethnical background can have a different time
perspective. Some of these children deliberately oppose to the time perspective of the dominant group. These children are wrongfully stigmatized as lazy, careless, impulsive and uninvolved (Meighan & Siraj-Blatchford, 1997). Moreover, teacher expectations and grouping practices can influence the self-perceptions as well as the academic achievement and social status of students. If two students have the same aptitude and academic motivation, the student who is expected to do well is likely to perform better than the student whose teacher expects less (Jussim & Eccles, 1992). In that case, teacher expectancies become self-fulfilling prophecies. This is called the Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). This can also limit the life chances of children from minorities, as teachers tend to have lower expectations of them (Agirdag, 2016). Whether teacher expectations influence student self-perceptions and academic achievement depends on the age of the student (younger students are generally more susceptible) and on how differently a teacher treats high- versus low -expectation pupils. For example, a common practice at schools is ability grouping. Usually, this means that teachers assign different learning activities to children from different ability groups. This becomes a problem when students who are ready for more challenging work are not given the opportunity to try it because teachers believe it is too difficult for them (Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2013). In addition, teacher-pupil interactions can effect the self-perceptions and motivation of students and this might lead to
lower performance. For example, when high-expectation students don’t know the answer, the teacher is likely to rephrase it, which gives them the idea that failures can be overdone by persisting and trying harder. In contrast, low-expectation children are not often challenged and are more likely to be criticized when they answer a question incorrectly. As a result, they might internalize they idea that they have little ability and this might undermine their motivation (Shaffer, 2008).
Nevertheless, some of the concerns of the critics of home education may be valid. There can always be homeschooling parents who harm their children, for example by imposing expectations and beliefs with which a child does not identify or by isolating their children (Merry & Howell, 2009). When children do not go to school and there are no forms of inspection, children who are harmed by their parents are not noticed. It is therefore important that there is some form of oversight of home education.
To conclude with, there is evidence that homeschooling is not bad for socialization, but too few studies of good quality have been conducted to reach solid conclusions. More research is needed that uses bigger, random samples, that describes the background characteristics of the participating families and that uses more objective measures than parental and self-report. However, the fact that it cannot be excluded that homeschooling might have negative effects on socialization of children is not a good argument to be against home education. As yet, there is also no research that explicitly supports the claim that schools are a good environment for socialization. The examples mentioned above indicate that schools can have negative
socialization effects and the underlying assumptions of the idea that schools are the best place to be socialized are also controversial. The virtues are that are deemed important by the proponents of school socialization, such as perseverance, obedience and patience are not the only virtues that are considered important by people. Moreover, simply attending school does not necessarily lead to the development of these virtues. Neither does interaction with peers and non-familial others automatically contribute to the development of positive social skills and tolerance of others. Socialization processes are more complex than that.
References
Agirdag, O. (2016). Etnische diversiteit in het onderwijs. In B. Eidhof, M. Van Houtte, M. Vermeulen (Eds.), Sociologen over onderwijs. Inzichten, praktijken en kritieken. Antwerpen, Belgium: Garant.
Albert, D., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The teenage brain: Peer influences on adolescent decision making. Current directions in psychological science, 22(2), 114-120. doi: 10.1177/0963721412471347
Allen, J. P., Weissberg, R. P., & Hawkins, J. A. (1989). The relation between values and social competence in early adolescence. Developmental psychology, 25(3), 458. doi:10.1037/0012 -1649.25.3.458
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arai, A. B. (1999). Homeschooling and the redefinition of citizenship. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 27-42. doi:10.14507/epaa.v7n27.1999
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. doi:10.1080/014256 90500199834
Basham, P., Merrifield, J., & Hepburn, C. R. (2007). Home schooling: From the extreme to the mainstream. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1992). School-based sources of stress among elementary and secondary at-risk students. The School Counselor, 40, 97–102.
Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (2000). Behavioral treatment of childhood social phobia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1072–1080. doi:10.1037/0022006X .68.6.1072
Blok, H., Merry, M. S., & Karsten, S. (2016). The Legal Situation of Home Education in Europe. In M. Gaither (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Home Education (pp. 395-421).West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Brint, S. (2006). Schools and Socialization. In G. Handel (Ed.), Childhood Socialization. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer Relationships in Adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Vol 1. Contextual Influences On Adolescent Development. doi:10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004
Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Somerville, L. H. (2011). Braking and accelerating of the adolescent brain. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 21-33. doi:10.1111/j.1532 7795.2010 .00712.x
Chatham-Carpenter, A. D. (1994). Home versus public schoolers: Differing social opportunities. Home School Researcher, 10(1), 15–24.
Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating and moderating effects on relations between academic achievement and social functioning in Chinese children. Child development, 74(3), 710-727. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00854.x
Cheng, A. (2014). Does homeschooling or private schooling promote political intolerance? Evidence from a Christian university. Journal of School Choice, 8(1), 49-68. doi:10.1080 /15582159 .2014.875411
Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent–child relationships: Links to children's socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Developmental psychology, 36(4), 485-498. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.36.4.485
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. doi:10.1177/00131245042 74190
Collom, E., & Mitchell, D. E. (2005). Home Schooling as a Social Movement: Identifying the Determinants of Homeschoolers' Perceptions. Sociological Spectrum, 25(3), 273-305. doi:10.1080 /027321790518807 Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character
strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-581. doi:10.1007/s10551 -013 -1680-8
Delahooke, M. M. (1986). Home educated children’s social/emotional adjustment and academic achievement: A comparative study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
Drenovsky, C., & Cohen, I. (2012). The impact of homeschooling on the adjustment of college
students. International Social Science Review, 87, 19–34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org /stable/41887517
Durkin, K. (1995). Socialization. In A. S. R. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 614–618). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 335-356. doi:10.1525/aeq.1987 .18.4.04x0023w Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer–group contextual effects
on aggression during early adolescence. Child development, 74(1), 205-220. doi:10.1111/1467 -8624.00531
Fowers, B. J. (2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity, and character types for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 629-653. doi:10.1177/0959354 308093399
Gatto, J. T. (2009). Weapons of mass instruction. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Gaither, M. (2017). Introduction to the Wiley Handbook of Home Education. In M. Gaither (Ed.), The
Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2016a). What makes a social encounter meaningful: The impact of social encounters of homeschooled children on emotional and behavioral problems. Education and Urban Society, 1-15. doi:10.1177/0013124516677009
Guterman, O., & Neuman, A. (2016b). 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
Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.
Gray, P., & Riley, G. (2013). The challenges and benefits of unschooling according to 232 families who have chosen that route. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 7, 1-27.
Greene, A. L. (1988). Early adolescents’ perceptions of stress. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 391–403. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 143-167). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Grusec, J. E., Chaparro, M. P., Johnston, M., & Sherman, A. (2014). The development of moral
behavior and conscience from a socialization perspective. In M. Killen & J.G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 243-265). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2015). Preface. In J. E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 7-8). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents' selection of similar friends.
Developmental psychology, 36(2), 209. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.36.2.209
Harman, G. (1999). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 315-331.
Harris, J. R. (2005). Social behavior and personality development. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 245- 270). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hartup, W.W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44, 120-126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.120
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological bulletin, 121(3), 355. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.355
Hauseman, D. C. (2011). “Nerdy Know-it-Alls” and “Paranoid Parents”: Images of alternative
learning in films and television programs. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 5(9). Retrieved from http://jual.nipissingu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/v5191.pdf
Heubeck, B., & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). An exploration into the nature, frequency and impact of school hassles in the middle school years. Australian Psychologist, 33, 130–137. doi:10.1080 /00050069808257394
Holt, J. (1966). How children fail. Literacy Research and Instruction, 6(1), 4-7. doi:10.1080 /19388076609556948
Isenberg, E. J. (2007). What have we learned about homeschooling? Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 387-409. doi:10.1080/01619560701312996
Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jackson, P. W. (1966). The student's world. The Elementary School Journal, 66(7), 345-357. Johnson, K. C. (1991). Socialization Practices of Christian Home School Educators in the State of
Virginia. Home School Researcher, 7(1), 9-16.
Jones, E. M. L. (2010). Transition from home education to higher education: Academic and social issues. Home School Researcher, 25(3), 1–9.
Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Teacher expectations: II. Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(6), 947-961.
Karsten, S. (2010). School segregation. In Equal Opportunities? The labour market integration of the children of immigrants (pp. 193-209). Parijs: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264086395-en Kentli, F. D. (2009). Comparison of hidden curriculum theories. European Journal of Educational
Studies, 1(2), 83-88. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b6d/7275c2c3f5f 176ee42d8e661ebdb4683e959.pdf
Knafo, A., Schwartz, S. H. (2001). Value Socialization in families of Israeli-born and Soviet-born adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 213-228.
Krosnick, J. A., & Judd, C. M. (1982). Transitions in social influence at adolescence: Who induces cigarette smoking? Developmental Psychology, 18, 359-368. doi:10.1037/0012-1649 .18.3.359
Kuczynski, L., & Knafo, A. (2014). Innovation and Continuity in Socialization, Internalization, and Acculturation. In M. Killen & J.G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 93- 111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kunzman, R. (2017). Homeschooler Socialization. In M. Gaither (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Home Education (pp. 135-156).West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Inc
Kunzman, R., & Gaither, M. (2013). Homeschooling: A comprehensive survey of the research. Other Education, 2(1), 4-59.
Laible, D., & Thompson, R. A., & Froimson, J. (2015). Early Socialization. The Influence of Close Relationships. In J. E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 33-45). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lambek, M. (2008). Value and virtue. Anthropological Theory, 8(2), 133-157. doi:10.1177/1463499608 090788
