Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-11
Does shadow education discourage or encourage creative thinking? Evidence from South Korea ( La educación en la sombra,¿fomenta o desincentiva el pensamiento creativo? Evidencia de Corea del Sur )
Using longitudinal data for a nationally representative sample of fifth-graders from the Korean Educational Longitudinal Study of 2013, this study examined the effect of shadow education — referred to as academically oriented extracurricular activities mainly aimed to prepare for examinations — on students’ creative thinking. To estimate the effect of shadow education, we used propensity score matching approaches. We found no significant shadow education effect on gains (or losses) in students’ creative thinking between the fifth and sixth grades. This finding does not support the arguments that students’ participation in shadow education discourages or encourages their creative thinking. Implications, limitations and future research directions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerD. P.AkibaM.LeTendreG. K.WisemanA. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–17. 10.3102/01623737023001001
2.
BakerD. P.LeTendreG. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503624870
3.
BateyM. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–65. 10.1080/10400419.2012.649181
4.
BateyM.FurnhamA. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429. 10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
5.
BenckwitzL.GuillK.RoloffJ.ÖmeroğullarıM.KöllerO. (2022). Investigating the relationship between private tutoring, tutors’ use of an individual frame of reference, reasons for private tutoring, and students’ motivational-affective outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 95, 102137. 10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102137
6.
BrayM. (2010). Researching shadow education: Methodological challenges and directions. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 3–13. 10.1007/s12564-009-9056-6
7.
BrayM. (2014). The impact of shadow education on student academic achievement: Why the research is inconclusive and what can be done about it. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(3), 381–389. 10.1007/s12564-014-9326-9
8.
BrayM. (2023). Understanding private supplementary tutoring: Metaphors, diversities and agendas for shadow education research. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 46(4). 10.1080/02103702.2023.2194792
9.
ByunS. (2010). Does policy matter in shadow education spending? Revisiting the effects of the high school equalization policy in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 83–96.
10.
ByunS. (2014). Shadow education and academic success in Republic of Korea. In ParkH.KimK. (Eds.), Korean education in changing economic and demographic contexts (pp. 39–58). Springer. 10.1007/978-981-4451-27-7_3
11.
ByunS.BakerD. P. (2015). Shadow education. In ScottR.KosslynS.PinkertonN. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–9). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0301
12.
ByunS.ChungH. (2014). Cross-national differences in shadow education: Search for explanatory factors. [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.
13.
ByunS.ChungH.BakerD. (2018). Global patterns of the use of shadow education: Student, family, and national influences. Research in the Sociology of Education, 20, 71–105. 10.1108/S1479-353920180000020004
14.
ByunS.ParkH. (2012). The academic success of East Asian American youth: The role of shadow education. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 40–60. 10.1177/0038040711417009
15.
ByunS.PongS. (2016). Children’s highbrow cultural activities and academic achievement in Hong Kong. Research in the Sociology of Education, 19, 123–148. 10.1108/S1479-353920150000019006
16.
ByunS.SchoferE.KimK. (2012). Revisiting the role of cultural capital in East Asian educational systems: The case of South Korea. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 219–239. 10.1177/0038040712447180
ChoiS.ByunS. (2022, June30). Socioeconomic inequality in non-cognitive skills among young adolescents in Korea: Gaps, trends, and heterogeneity. 10.31235/osf.io/gbm5j
19.
ChungH.RaymoJ. (2022, April6-9). Parenting in a “universal concerted cultivation” society: Class and childrearing in South Korea [Paper presentation]. Population Association of America 2022, Atlanta, GA, United States.
20.
CropleyA. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using?Roeper Review, 23(2), 72–79. 10.1080/02783190009554069
21.
CropleyA. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–401. 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
22.
DangH. (2007). The determinants and impact of private tutoring classes in Vietnam. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 684–699. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.003
23.
DuckworthA. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance(1st ed.). Scribner.
24.
EntrichS. R. (2018). Shadow education and social inequalities in Japan. Evolving patterns and conceptual implications. Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-69119-0
25.
EntrichS. R. (2021). Worldwide shadow education and social inequality: Explaining differences in the socioeconomic gap in access to shadow education across 63 societies. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(6), 441–475. 10.1177/0020715220987861
26.
FurnhamA.BateyM.AnandK.ManfieldJ. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1060–1069. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.035
27.
GoldschmidtG. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122. 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497
28.
GuilfordJ. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. 10.1037/h0063487
29.
GuillK.LüdtkeO.KöllerO. (2020). Assessing the instructional quality of private tutoring and its effects on student outcomes: Analyses from the German National educational panel study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 282–300. 10.1111/bjep.12281
30.
GuillK.ÖmeroğullarıM.KöllerO. (2021). Intensity and content of private tutoring lessons during German secondary schooling: Effects on students’ grades and test achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37(4), 1093–1114. 10.1007/s10212-021-00581-x
31.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
32.
GuoY.ChenQ.ZhaiS.PeiC. (2020). Does private tutoring improve student learning in China? Evidence from the China education panel survey. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 7(3), 322–343. 10.1002/app5.310
33.
HanS.SuhH. (2020). The effects of shadow education on high school students’ creative thinking and academic achievement in mathematics: The case of the Republic of Korea. Educational Studies. Advance online publication. 10.1080/03055698.2020.1850427
34.
HeY.ZhangY.MaX.Wang. (2021). Does private supplementary tutoring matter? The effect of private supplementary tutoring on mathematics achievement. International Journal of Educational Development, 84, 102402. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102402
35.
HeckmanJ. J.RubinsteinY. (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 145–149. 10.1257/aer.91.2.145
36.
IchinoJ. (2011, September24–28). Discriminating divergent/convergent phases of meeting using non-verbal speech patterns. In BødkerS.BouvinN. O.LuttersW.WulfV.CiolfiL. (Eds.), ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 153–172). Springer Verlag.
37.
JohnsonD. R.YoungR. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 926–945. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00861.x
38.
KimY. C. (2016). Shadow education, curriculum, and culture of schooling in South Korea. Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
KimY. C.JoJ.JungJ. (2020). The education of academically gifted students in South Korea: Innovative approaches in shadow education. European Journal of Education, 55(3), 376–387. 10.1111/ejed.12399
40.
KimY. C.JungJ. H. (Eds.). (2021). Theorizing shadow education and academic success in East Asia: Understanding the meaning, value, and use of shadow education by East Asian students. Routledge.
41.
KuanP. (2011). Effects of cram schooling on mathematics performance: Evidence from junior high students in Taiwan. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 342–368. 10.1086/659142
42.
LareauA. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776. 10.2307/3088916
43.
LeeC.LeeH.JangH. (2010). The history of policy responses to shadow education in South Korea: Implications for the next cycle of policy responses. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1), 97–108. 10.1007/s12564-009-9064-6
44.
MatsuokaR. (2019). Concerted cultivation developed in a standardized education system. Social Science Research, 77, 161–178. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.011
45.
MumfordM. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120. 10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
ParkH.BuchmannC.ChoiJ.MerryJ. J. (2016). Learning beyond the school walls: Trends and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 42(1), 231–252. 10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074341
48.
ParkH.ByunS.KimK. (2011). Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 3–22. 10.1177/0038040710392719
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39, 33–38. 10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
51.
RoystonP.WhiteI. R. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(4), 1–20. 10.18637/jss.v045.i04
52.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. John Wiley. 10.1002/9780470316696
53.
RuncoM. A. (1991). The evaluative, valuative and divergent thinking of children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 311–319. 10.1002/jocb.1991.25.issue-4
54.
RuncoM. A.BasadurM. (1993). Assessing ideational and evaluative skills and creative styles and attitudes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2(3), 166–173. 10.1111/caim.1993.2.issue-3
55.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
56.
SchaubM.KimH.JangD.BakerD. P. (2020). Reformer’s dream or nightmare?Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(7), 1066–1079. 10.1080/03057925.2020.1733797
57.
SchneiderB.MartinC.KilpatrickJ.SchmidtW. H.ShavelsonR. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs. American Educational Research Association.
58.
SethM. (2002). Education fever: Society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. University of Hawaii Press. 10.1515/9780824862305
59.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadswordth Cengage Learning.
60.
SmythE. (2008). The more, the better? Intensity of involvement in private tuition and examination performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(5), 465–476. 10.1080/13803610802246395
SternbergR. J.LubartT. I. (1999). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in culture of conformity. Free Press.
63.
TorranceE. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical- norms manual. Scholastic Testing Services.
64.
Vincent-LancrinSGonzález-SanchoCBouckaertMLucaFFernández-BarrerraMJacotinGUrgelJVidalQ. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. 10.1787/62212c37-en
65.
von HippelP. T. (2005). How many imputations are needed? A comment on Hershberger and Fisher (2003). Structural Equation Modeling, 12(2), 334–335. 10.1207/s15328007sem1202_8
66.
von HippelP. T. (2007). Regression with missing Ys: An improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37(1), 83–117. 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00180.x
67.
ZhuW.ShangS.JiangW.PeiM.SuY. (2019). Convergent thinking moderates the relationship between divergent thinking and scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 320–328. 10.1080/10400419.2019.1641685
68.
ZwierD.GevenS.van de WerfhorstH. G. (2021). Social inequality in shadow education: The role of high-stakes testing. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(6), 412–440. 10.1177/0020715220984500
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
