Two Worlds of Private Tutoring: The Prevalence and Causes of After-School Mathematics Tutoring in Korea and the United States

Abstract

Background/Context

Although prior research shows that the nature and extent of private tutoring practices vary significantly from country to country, differences between Eastern and Western countries in terms of their cultural and institutional aspects of private tutoring choice have not been closely examined. We need to bridge the gap by studying the phenomenon of private tutoring more broadly as both an individual and a collective choice, and by accounting for its variations within and between countries.

Objective

The objective of this study is to describe variations in the prevalence and causes of private tutoring around the world and to understand the differences between Korea and the United States in terms of their unique needs for private tutoring and policy responses. It helps better understand the phenomenon of private tutoring more broadly as both an individual and a collective choice by accounting for its variations within and between countries.

Research Design

This study draws on secondary analysis of the 1995 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) eighth-grade student and teacher survey databases that provide information on participation in after-school math private tutoring from 41 countries, including Korea and the United States. In addition, data from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) yearbook are analyzed for information on the status of public education. Independent samples t tests, correlations, multiple regression methods, and logistic regression methods are used to examine the relationships between private tutoring and related factors.

Findings

Although after-school private mathematics tutoring is prevalent among eighth-grade students across the TIMSS nations, there are significant between-country and within-country variations in tutoring needs and participation rates. After-school private mathematics tutoring is observed more in countries with relatively poor schooling conditions and lower academic achievement. However, a critical difference between Korea and the United States is noted: Tutoring in Korea serves primarily enrichment needs for higher achieving college-bound students, whereas tutoring in the United States is primarily for meeting remediation needs of lower achieving students. Further, the two countries diverge in their policy responses to tutoring needs: Private tutoring in Korea is seen as a threat to public education and has been regulated by the government, whereas private tutoring in the United States is seen as bolstering public education and receives support from the government.

Conclusions

Private tutoring may function as a double-edged sword. On one hand, private tutoring stems from collective needs for providing supplementary education as compensation for limited schooling opportunities and from individual needs for academic remediation. On the other hand, private tutoring often serves high-achieving students for enrichment or college preparation, which may erode the idea of equal educational opportunities as envisioned by public schooling. The policy challenge is capitalizing on private tutoring as bolstering academic excellence and equity in public education, while counteracting its potential threats to public schools.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

L. M.

, and Weiner

(2004). Early implementation of supplemental educational services under the No Child Left Behind Act: Year One Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Baker

D. P.

, Akiba

, LeTendre

G. K.

, and Wiseman

A. W.

(2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 1—17.

Beaton

A. E.

, Mullis

I. V. S.

, Martin

M. O.

, Gonzalez

E. J.

, Kelly

D. L.

, and Smith

T. A.

(1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Bloom

B. S.

(1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4—16.

Bray

(1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO.

Chosunilbo (2003, October 22). Yeon-sa-kyo-yuk-bi cho-dan-wi-ro jeung-ga [Private education cost increases yearly in billion dollars]. Retrieved October 22, 2003, from http://www.chosun.com

Cohen

(2002). AM statistical software: User guide. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Cohen

P. A.

, Kulik

J. A.

, and Kulik

C. L. C.

(1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237—248.

Ellinger

T. R.

, and Beckham

G. M.

(1997). South Korea: Placing education on top of the family agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 624—625.

10.

Ferguson

R. F.

(1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test score gap. In Jencks

, and Phillips

(Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 273—317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

11.

Fordham

, and Ogbu

(1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of “acting White.” Urban Review, 18, 176—206.

12.

Gordon

E. E.

, and Gordon

E. H.

(1990). Centuries of tutoring: A history of alternative education in America and Western Europe. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

13.

Goya

(1993). The secret of Japanese education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 126—132.

14.

Harnisch

D. L.

(1994). Supplemental education in Japan: Juku schooling and its implication. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 323—334.

15.

Holloway

S. D.

, Fuller

, Hess

R. D.

, Azuma

, Kashiwagi

, and Gorman

(1990). The family's influence on achievement in Japan and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 34, 196—208.

16.

Hong

(2004, February 20). TV kwa-woi i-hu [After-school TV tutoring program]. Dongailbo. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.donga.com

17.

Howson

A. G.

(1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of grade eight texts. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.

18.

Juel

(1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268—289.

19.

Kim

Y. C.

(1997). Sa-kyo-yuk-bi mun-je-wa dae-ung-bang-an [Private education cost problems and solutions]. Paper presented at the Korea Development Institute forum on national policy development, Seoul, Korea.

20.

Kim

, Kim

, Yang

, Yun

, and Kim

(2003). Kwa-woi kyo-seub sil-tae jo-sa [A survey of private tutoring practices in Korea]. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

21.

Korean Ministry of Education. (2000, June). Ka-yeol-kwa-woi ye-bang mit kong-kyo-yuk nae-silhwa bang-an jong-hap-bo-go-seo [Comprehensive report on plans for preventing excessive private tutoring and improving public education]. Seoul, Korea: Author.

22.

Lee

(2005). Korean education fever and private tutoring. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 2(1), 99—107.

23.

Lee

(2002). The role of Korean parents in the literacy development of their children. International Journal of Early Childhood, 34, 1—8.

24.

Lee

(1999). Missing links in international education studies: Can we compare the U.S. with East Asian countries? International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 3(18). Retrieved May 20, 2003, from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll/volume3/lee.html

25.

Lee

(2001). School reform initiatives as balancing acts: Policy variation and educational convergence among Japan, Korea, England and the United States. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9(13). Retrieved May 22, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n13.html

26.

Lee

(Ed.). (2005). Revisiting education fever from international perspectives: Using research to inform educational policy [Special issue]. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 2(1), 1—111.

27.

Lee

V. E.

, and Smith

J. B.

(1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907—945.

28.

McArthur

, Stasz

, and Zmuidzinas

(1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 197—244.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

30.

Preschool education fever/disappointing appointments. (2002, January 7). Korea Times. Retrieved May 25, 2003, from http://times.hankooki.com/times.htm

31.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 85—97.

32.

Rohlen

T. P.

(1980). The Juku phenomenon: An exploratory essay. Journal of Japanese Studies, 6(2), 207—242.

33.

Rosenthal

, and Jacobson

(1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

34.

Schmidt

W. H.

, Jorde

, Cogan

, Barrier

, Gonzalo

, and Moser

. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.

35.

Shin

, Kang

, Lim

, Kim

, and Kim

(1991). Kwa-woi-su-eob sil-tae-bun-seok yeon-gu [A study on private tutoring in Korea]. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

36.

Sorensen

C. W.

(1994). Success and education in South Korea. Comparative Education Review, 38, 10—35.

37.

Sue

, and Okazaki

(1990). Asian-American educational achievement: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913—20.

38.

Stevenson

, and Stigler

(1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.

39.

Sunderman

G. L.

, and Kim

(2004). Increasing bureaucracy or increasing opportunities? School district experience with supplemental educational services. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

40.

Topping

, and Whitley

(1990). Participant evaluation of parent-tutored and peer-tutored projects in reading. Educational Research, 32, 14—32.

41.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1997). Statistical Yearbook. Paris: Author.

42.

U.S. Department of Education (1996). The national study of before- and after-school programs: analysis and highlights. Retrieved June 1, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/b4&aftr.html.

43.

U.S. Department of Education (2002a). No Child Left Behind: The facts about 21st-century learning. Retrieved June 1, 2002, from http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/start/facts/21centlearn.html

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). Secretary Paige focuses on supplemental services. Community Update, No. 98.

45.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers program, first year findings. Washington, DC: Author.

46.

White

M. I.

(1987). The Japanese educational challenge: A commitment to children. New York: Free Press.