Online Tutoring or Offline Tutoring: Evidence from Family Decisions on Private Tutoring

Tang Rongrong

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.05.004

Volume 38 Issue 5

May 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(5): 78-92

Tang Rongrong. Online Tutoring or Offline Tutoring: Evidence from Family Decisions on Private Tutoring[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(5): 78-92. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.05.004

Citation:

Tang Rongrong. Online Tutoring or Offline Tutoring: Evidence from Family Decisions on Private Tutoring[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(5): 78-92. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.05.004

Citation:

PDF( 791 KB)

Online Tutoring or Offline Tutoring: Evidence from Family Decisions on Private Tutoring

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.05.004

Tang Rongrong

Graduate School of Education, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

Available Online: 2020-05-22
Publish Date: 2020-05-01

Abstract

Abstract

Today, with the institutionalization of shadow education, it is common for pupils to attend supplementary lessons, but the existing literature lacks discussion on the forms of tutoring. This article focuses on famil’s choice of the forms of tutoring, trying to explore the relationship between online tutoring and offline tutoring. The analysis of China Family Online Tutoring Survey conducted by CIEFR in 2018 indicates that, on the one hand, online tutoring and offline tutoring, as supplementary education choices, are subjected to parent’ education levels and expectations. On the other hand, some factors with significant impact on offline tutoring have no significant effect on online tutoring, mainly in terms of distance and income. This reflects the fact that online tutoring can reduce transportation costs and search costs, thereby lowering the threshold of household tutoring consumption and making the distribution of educational resources less uneven. Further analysis shows that, pupils participating in offline tutoring are more likely to attend online tutoring as well, both from a financial-constraint and a demand-satisfaction perspective. In other words, when parents make their tutoring decisions, they do not choose between offline and online . Instead, they choose both, which confirms the popularization of private tutoring.
- online tutoring,
- offline tutoring,
- family tutoring decision

FullText(HTML)

References(27)

References

[1]	陈全功, 程蹊, 李忠斌. (2011). 我国城乡补习教育发展及其经济成本的调查研究. 教育与经济,(2),32−36. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2011.02.007
[2]	楚红丽. (2009). 我国中小学生课外补习家庭之背景特征及个人因素. 教育学术月刊,(12),22−27.
[3]	丁小浩, 于洪霞, 余秋梅. (2012). 中国城镇居民各级教育收益率及其变化研究:2002~2009年. 北京大学教育评论,10(3),73−84. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2012.03.007
[4]	雷万鹏. (2005). 高中生教育补习支出:影响因素及政策启示. 教育与经济,(1),39−42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2005.01.010
[5]	方晨晨, 薛海平. (2015). 义务教育学生参加课外补习行为的影响因素研究. 中小学管理,(5),51−53.
[6]	庞圣民. (2017). 家庭背景、影子教育与“初升高”:理解当代中国社会教育分层的新视角. 社会发展研究,(4),105−123.
[7]	王蓉. (2018). 中国教育新业态发展报告. 北京:社会科学文献出版社.
[8]	吴翌琳. (2016). 初中生课外补习的影响因素研究——基于CEPS的调查数据分析. 教育科学,32(5),63−73. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8064.2016.05.011
[9]	谢贝妮, 李岳云. (2014). 劳动力流动对农村家庭教育投资决策的影响. 教育科学文摘,33(1),18−19.
[10]	许政法. (2009). 国内课外补习研究回顾与展望. 教学研究,(01),60−63. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4634.2009.01.015
[11]	薛海平. (2015). 从学校教育到影子教育:教育竞争与社会再生产. 北京大学教育评论,13(3),47−69. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2015.03.004
[12]	薛海平. (2016). 课外补习、学习成绩与社会再生产. 教育与经济,(2),32−43. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2016.02.005
[13]	薛海平, 丁小浩. (2009). 中国城镇学生教育补习研究. 教育研究,(1),39−46.
[14]	薛海平, 李静. (2016). 家庭资本、影子教育与社会再生产. 教育经济评论,(04),62−83.
[15]	薛海平, 王东, 巫锡炜. (2014). 课外补习对义务教育留守儿童学业成绩的影响研究. 北京大学教育评论,12(3),50−62. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2014.03.004
[16]	王晓磊. (2017). 初中阶段教育质量与影子教育机会的不平等——以CEPS2013—2014数据为例. 北京社会科学,(9),50−60.
[17]	张羽, 刘娟娟, 李曼丽. (2015). 北京市小学生进入家教市场的早晚及其影响因素分析. 教育发展研究,(4),31−37.
[18]	曾满超, 丁小浩, 沈华. (2010). 初中生课外补习城乡差异分析——基于甘肃、湖南和江苏3省的初中学生课外补习调查. 教育与经济,(2),9−13.
[19]	Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1976). Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy, 84(4, Part 2), S143−S162. doi: 10.1086/260536
[20]	Bray M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring?. International Institute for Educational Planning, .
[21]	Bray, M., Zhan, S., Lykins, C., Wang, D., & Kwo, O. (2014). Differentiated demand for private supplementary tutoring: Patterns and implications in Hong Kong secondary education. Economics of Education Review, 38, 24−37. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.10.002
[22]	Dang, H. A., & Rogers, F. H. (2008). The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources?. The World Bank Research Observer, 23(2), 161−200. doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkn004
[23]	Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1), 3−43. doi: 10.1257/jel.20171452
[24]	Jokić, B. (2013). Emerging from the shadow: A comparative qualitative exploration of private tutoring in Eurasia (No. 2). Network of Education Policy Centers (NEPC), .
[25]	Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2004). Returns to investment in education: A further update. Education Economics, 12(2), 111−134. doi: 10.1080/0964529042000239140
[26]	Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639−1657. doi: 10.1086/229942
[27]	Ventura, A., & Jang, S. (2010). Private tutoring through the internet: Globalization and offshoring. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 59−68. doi: 10.1007/s12564-009-9065-5