Record: Ari Neuman & Oz Guterman, “Metaphors and education: comparison of metaphors for education among parents of children in school and home education,” Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, Vol. 26 no. 3 (2018): 435-447. ISSN 1468-1366 [abstract available here]
Summary: Neuman and Guterman of Western Galilee College in Akko, Israel once again take a deeper look into the lives of home educating families; this time using metaphors as a source of measurement.
The duo gathered a group of 30 participants, which was divided into two groups: 15 mothers whose children were enrolled in school and 15 mothers who chose to homeschool. The mothers all had children in school ranging from age 6-12. This was done to establish a comparison of the viewpoints of schooling between homeschooling and standard schooling families.
Data were collected based off of personal interviews with the participants. The interviewers would ask the participants to use a metaphor to complete either the sentence starter “Education in schools is like…” or “Home education is like…” (p. 438). Based off of the responses, Neuman and Guterman created three categories of positive, neutral, and negative responses each with its own super-category regarding a common theme.
Of the 17 metaphors collected from the 15 participants with children enrolled in school, three were determined to be positive, four were neutral, and ten were negative. The super-category for those deemed positive was Preparation for Life. Three of the participants viewed the standard schooling system as a place of preparation for life post-graduation. Those deemed neutral were given the super-category of Continuity-Continuation and Routine. Four of the participants expressed views of maintaining a routine that has to be done because that is how life goes. One specifically used the metaphor of going to work every day for eight hours a day.
The negative metaphors were divided into three super-categories. The first super-category was Discipline and Structuring. Two participants used a metaphor of a factory or boot camp as it teaches students discipline and order. The next super-category was A Lack, Absence, of Wholeness. Four of the metaphors given were in some way related to a lacking of comprehensive knowledge. One used the metaphor of a mall because a person can go inside and see everything, but the person does not buy it all. These participants expressed that education in schools lacks a depth of content. The final negative super-category was Babysitter. Two participants offered a metaphor related to the school system being a form of glorified babysitting while adults go off to work.
For the participants of home educating families, all 18 of the metaphors collected were deemed positive. These were divided into five super-categories. The first super-category was Forces of Nature. Five participants used metaphors related to nature to express the freedom given in home education. Students are allowed to grow and blossom and be refreshed by it. The next super-category was A Part of Life. This was similar to the neutral super-category of Continuity given for the standard schooling families, but the metaphors had a much more positive spin on the concept. These participants saw home education as an ongoing process which is “the right thing to do” (p. 441). The following super-category was Creativity. These participants offered metaphors expressing the value of creativity and abstractness in education because it allows for a more personalized experience. The next super-category was Giving Positive Emotions. The metaphors given were all about love and connectedness to family. The final super-category was Freedom of Choice. Two metaphors expressed the value of having the independence to do what is best for the student.
Considering that all of the home educating participants’ metaphors were all positive and the standard schooling participants’ were mixed, Neuman and Guterman had some thoughts as to what makes home educating mothers to feel more positively about their experiences. One posed possibility was that home educating families are constantly advocating for their choice. Since their method of schooling is contrary to the norm, it allows for deep convictions to arise about the issue which leads to a more positive response as a way to highlight the benefits of their decision.
Looking at all of the data, a common theme that Neuman and Guterman were able to see was a desire for a more constructivist perspective of education. The shortcomings that were pointed out by the standard education participants reflected a lack of constructivist principles in the school system such as flexibility, open-endedness, and personally-tailored learning. Interestingly, these were the same themes seen in the positive metaphors given by the home educating participants; however, they were seen as strengths because homeschooling allows for a more flexible and personal learning experience for the student.
Appraisal: The methodology of Neuman and Guterman to use metaphors as a way to better understand the viewpoints of home educating families compared to standard educating families was creative and interesting. Metaphors allow participants to express their ideas in a more open-ended manner without expecting them to explain in great detail what is on their minds.
Since metaphors are figurative, it is sometimes hard to tell their actual intent. Categorizing them is almost more difficult than categorizing a one-sentence statement about the participants’ views of their education choice. Some of the metaphors listed I could see going into a variety of the super-categories offered or even in a super-category of their own. Neuman and Guterman did not explain how they arrived at their various categories, so me must just take it on faith that their categories are accurate.
Overall, the study was an interesting approach to a seemingly simple research question. The commonalities that Neuman and Guterman found between homeschooling and standard schooling participants suggest that constructivist pedagogy might have more parental support than is often acknowledged. Of course it’s not entirely fair to compare a group of self-selecting homeschooling advocates to a group of parents who likely didn’t choose to send their kids to school out of a deep commitment. Better might have been to find 15 families who intentionally rejected the option of home education. But regardless, for what it is, this study was engaging and provocative.
Marissa Donlevie, Messiah College