Does the Expert-based Collective Advising Mechanism Promote Educational Equity? Experience from China

Abstract

The Expert-based Collective Advising Mechanism (ECAM) was embedded in the open online tutoring project to provide free tutoring for rural students and to help them improve their academic performance, and thus, to solve education inequity. Taking urban and rural students in Tongzhou District of Beijing as the objects, this study gathered data on the tutoring frequency, the durations students received tutoring, the number of teachers who tutored the same student, and the students’ academic performance. The tutoring behavior and academic performance of rural and urban students were compared. The results showed that the ECAM could improve students’ academic performance. Rural and urban students who received tutoring got the same degree of performance appreciation. Finally, gender, school type, and tutoring duration predicted academic performance positively.

Keywords

expert-based collective advising mechanism open online tutoring online learning educational equity digital divide

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adhikari

Scogings

Mathrani

Sofat

(2017). Evolving digital divides in information literacy and learning outcomes A BYOD journey in a secondary school. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(4), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-04-2017-0022

Atalmis

E. H.

Yilmaz

Saatcioglu

(2016). How does private tutoring mediate the effects of socio-economic status on mathematics performance? Evidence from Turkey. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1135–1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316674159

Buskist

Sikorski

Buckley

Saville

B. K.

(2002). Elements of master teaching. In David

S. F.

Buskist

(Eds.), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer (pp. 27–39). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clark

(2017). Practical applications of technology as a key to reducing the digital divide among African-American youth. Journal of Children and Media, 11(2), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1306369

Darvin

(2018). Social class and the unequal digital literacies of youth. Language and Literacy, 20(3), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29407

de Villiers

Weda

. (2017). Zimbabwean teachers in South Africa: A transient greener pasture. South African Journal of Education, 37(3), 1410. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n3a1410

Fang

J. C.

Guo

Guan

S. C.

(2022). A study on competence of teaching or scientific projects research for primary and secondary school teachers based on Blockchain technology. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 2022(10), 3920877. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3920877

Faranda

W. T.

Clarke

(2004). Student observations of outstanding teaching: Implications for marketing educators. Journal of marketing education, 26(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304268782

Garcia

Weiss

(2020). How teachers view their own professional status: A snapshot. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(6), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720909581

10.

Garcia

Agbemakplido

Abdella

Lopez

Registe

R. T.

(2006). High school students’ perspectives on the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act’s definition of a highly qualified teacher. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 698–724. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.nu70771132536q86

11.

Haight

Quan-Haase

Corbett

B. A.

(2014). Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: The impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.891633

12.

Hallinger

Liu

(2016). Leadership and teacher learning in urban and rural schools in China: Meeting the dual challenges of equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Development, 51, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.10.001

13.

Hansen

J. D.

Reich

(2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350(6265), 1245–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3782

14.

Hargittai

(2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/144

15.

Hockly

Dudeney

(2018). Current and future digital trends in ELT. RELC Journal, 49(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218777318

16.

Y. M.

Fan

W. F.

Ding

W. L.

(2015). Does shadow education aggravate inequality of educational outcomes? An empirical study on PISA 2012 Shanghai data (in Chinese). Peking University Education Review, 13(3), 29–46, 188. https://doi.org/10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2015.03.004

17.

Keeley

Christopher

A. N.

Buskist

(2012). Emerging evidence for excellent teaching across borders. In Groccia

J. E.

Alsudairi

M. A. T.

Buskist

(Eds.), Handbook of college and university teaching: A global perspective (pp. 374–391). SAGE.

18.

Kimmons

Carpenter

J. P.

Veletsianos

Krutka

D. G.

(2018). Mining social media divides: An analysis of K-12 US school uses of Twitter. Learning Media and Technology, 43(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504791

19.

Lee

J. H.

Fuller

(2022). Does progressive finance alter school organizations and raise achievement? The case of Los Angeles. Educational Policy, 36(3), 587–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820901472

20.

Lembani

Gunter

Breines

Dalu

M. T. B.

(2020). The same course, different access: The digital divide between urban and rural distance education students in South Africa. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1694876

21.

Sass

T. R.

(2017). Teacher quality and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 12(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00214

22.

Lin

Shi

Wang

Zhang

Liu

(2012). Initial motivations for teaching: Comparison between preservice teachers in the United States and China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.700047

23.

Little

S. J.

Welsh

R. O.

(2022). Rac(e)ing to punishment? Applying theory to racial disparities in disciplinary outcomes. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 564–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1599344

24.

Liu

J. Y.

Bray

(2020). Evolving micro-level processes of demand for private supplementary tutoring: Patterns and implications at primary and lower secondary levels in China. Educational Studies, 46(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1555452

25.

Malik

Martinez

Romero

Schubel

Janowicz

P. A.

(2014). Mixed-methods study of online and written organic chemistry homework. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1804–1809. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400798t

26.

Montiel

Delgado-Ceballos

Ortiz-de-Mandojana

Antolin-Lopez

(2020). New ways of teaching: Using technology and mobile apps to educate on societal grand challenges. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(2), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04184-x

27.

Moses

Berry

Saab

Admiraal

(2017). Who wants to become a teacher? Typology of student-teachers’ commitment to teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(4), 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1296562

28.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2016). What teachers should know and be able to do. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475447.pdf

29.

Özyurt

(2021). Investigation of implant internal screw loosening under hyperbaric conditions: An in vitro study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 23(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12997

30.

Parr

Ward

(2005). Evaluation of the Digital Opportunities Project FarNet: Learning Communities in the Far North. Ministry of Education.

31.

Pelliccione

Morey

Walker

Morrison

(2019). An evidence-based case for quality online initial teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5513

32.

Restal

Laferrière

(2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z

33.

Richards-Babb

Jackson

J. K.

(2011). Gendered responses to online homework use in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(4), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0RP90014A

34.

Rivers

(2004). A summary of the key findings of the evaluations of the digital opportunities pilot projects (2001–2003). Ministry of Education.

35.

Smyth

(2008). The more, the better? Intensity of involvement in private tuition and examination performace. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(5), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802246395

36.

Soomro

K. A.

Kale

Curtis

Akcaoglu

Bernstein

(2020). Digital divide among higher education faculty. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5

37.

Sun

L. X.

Shafiq

M. N.

McClure

Guo

S. S.

(2020). Are there educational and psychological benefits from private supplementary tutoring in Mainland China? Evidence from the China Education Panel Survey, 2013-15. International Journal of Educational Development, 72, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102144

38.

Trinidad

Broadley

Terry

Boyd

Lock

Byrne

Sharplin

Ledger

(2012). Going bush: Preparing pre-service teachers to teach in regional Western Australia. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(1), 39–55. https://doi/10.3316/informit.663956907048451

39.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind act. Author. https://www.ed.gov/

40.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.ed.gov/www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.pdf

41.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Our future, our teachers: The Obama Administration’s plan for teacher education reform and improvement. Author. http://www.2ed.gov/inits/ed/index/html

42.

Warschauer

(2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.

43.

Warschauer

Matuchniak

(2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791

44.

Wei

K. K.

Teo

H. H.

Chan

H. C.

Tan

B. C. Y.

(2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273

45.

Wei

Zhou

(2019). Are better teachers more likely to move? Examining teacher mobility in rural China. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0423-0

46.

Worth

Bamford

Durbin

(2015). Should I stay or should I go? NFER analysis of teachers joining and leaving the profession. NFER.

47.

Wronowski

M. L.

(2018). Filling the void: A grounded theory approach to addressing teacher recruitment and retention in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 50(6), 548–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713608

48.

Xue

E. Y.

T. Z.

(2017). Analysis of policies to develop the teaching force in rural areas of China. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 14(2), 41–60.

49.

Zhang

Bray

(2018). Equalising schooling, unequalising private supplementary tutoring: Access and tracking through shadow education in China. Oxford Review of Education, 44(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710.