Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 683–701 | Cite as

Does private tutoring increase students’ academic performance? Evidence from Turkey

  • Giray Berberoğlu
  • Aysit Tansel
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper investigates the effectiveness of private tutoring in Turkey. The authors introduce their study by providing some background information on the two major national examinations and three different kinds of tutoring. They then describe how they aimed to analyse whether attending private tutoring centres (PTCs) enhances Turkish students’ academic performance. By way of multiple linear regression analysis, their study sought to evaluate whether the impact of private tutoring varies in different subject areas, taking into account several student-related characteristics such as family and academic backgrounds as well as interest in and perception of academic success. In terms of subject areas, the results indicate that while private tutoring does have a positive impact on academic performance in mathematics and Turkish language, this is not the case in natural sciences. However, as evidenced by the effect sizes, these impacts are rather small compared to the impacts of other variables such as interest in and perception of academic success, high school graduation fields of study, high school cumulative grade point average (CGPA), parental education and students’ sociocultural background. While the authors point out that more research on the impact of further important variables needs to be done, their view is that school seems to be an important factor for determining students’ academic performance.

Keywords

Private tutoring Academic Performance Regression analysis Turkey 

Résumé

Le soutien scolaire privé améliore-t-il les performances des étudiants ? Les résultats en Turquie – Les auteurs de cet article explorent l’efficacité des cours particuliers dispensés en Turquie. Ils présentent leur étude en fournissant quelques informations de fond sur les deux principaux examens nationaux et trois formes différentes de soutien scolaire. Ils décrivent ensuite l’approche qu’ils ont adoptée pour déterminer si la fréquentation des centres privés de soutien scolaire améliore les performances des étudiants turcs. Au moyen d’une analyse par régression linéaire multiple, ils ont cherché à établir si l’impact du soutien privé varie en fonction des disciplines, en intégrant plusieurs critères relatifs aux étudiants tels que le contexte familial et universitaire ainsi que l’intérêt et la perception pour le succès universitaire. En ce qui concerne les disciplines, les résultats indiquent que si le soutien privé a effectivement un impact positif sur les performances universitaires en mathématiques et en langue turque, il n’en est pas le cas dans le domaine des sciences naturelles. Néanmoins, comme le démontrent les tailles d’effet, ces impacts sont plutôt modestes, comparés à ceux d’autres variables telles que l’intérêt et la perception pour le succès universitaire, les matières d’examen pour le diplôme des études secondaires, la moyenne pondérée cumulative (MPC) obtenue au baccalauréat, le niveau d’instruction des parents et le contexte socioculturel de l’étudiant. Les auteurs signalent qu’une étude complémentaire serait nécessaire pour examiner l’impact d’autres variables significatives, mais émettent d’ores et déjà le point de vue que l’école semble être un facteur important pour déterminer les performances des étudiants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abu-Hilal, M. M. (2000). A structural model for predicting mathematics achievement: Its relation with anxiety and self-concept in mathematics. Psychological Reports, 86(3), 835–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berberoğlu, G. (2010). Ölçme ve Değerlendirmenin Uygulamaya Yansıyan Boyutları [Dimensions of measurement and evaluation which are reflected to educational practices]. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(10), 10–14.Google Scholar
  4. Berberoğlu, G., Demirtaşlı, N., İş Güzel, C., Arıkan, S., & Özgen Tuncer, C. (2010). Okul Dışı Etmenlerin Öğrenci Başarısı ile İlişkisi [Effects of out-of-school factors on students’ achievement]. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama., 1(7), 28–38.Google Scholar
  5. Bray, M. (2006). Private supplementary tutoring: Comparative perspectives on patterns and implications. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 36(4), 515–530.Google Scholar
  6. Bray, M. (2011). Does tutoring work? In M. Bray, The challenge of shadow education: Private tutoring and its implications for policy makers in the European Union (pp. 47–51). Brussels: European Commission. Accessed 5 December 2012 from http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/the-challenge-of-shadow-education-1.
  7. Bray, M., Mazawi, A. E., & Sultana, R. G. (2013). Private tutoring across the Mediterranean: Power dynamics and implications for learning and equity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briggs, D. C. (2001). The effect of admissions test preparation: Evidence from NELS: 88. Chance, 14(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
  9. Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya: Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In E. Hannum (Ed.) Schooling and social capital in diverse cultures. Research in the Sociology of Education series (Vol. 13, pp. 133–159). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  10. Cheo, R., & Quah, E. (2005). Mothers, maids and tutors: An empirical evaluation of their effect on children’s academic grades in Singapore. Education Economics, 13(3), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, A., Calero., J. & Escardíbul, J.-O. (2011). Hell to touch the sky? Private tutoring and academic achievement in Korea. IEB Working Paper series No. 2011/10. Barcelona: Barcelona Institute of Economics (IEB).Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, S. E., & Robinson, D. A. G. (1991). The relationship of mathematics self efficacy beliefs to mathematics anxiety and performance. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 24(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  14. Dang, H.-A. (2007). The determinants and impact of private tutoring classes in Vietnam. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 684–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gök, F. (2010). Marketing hope: Private institutions preparing students for the university entrance examination in Turkey, In S. K. Amos (Ed.), International educational governance, international perspectives on education and society. International Perspectives on Education and Society series (Vol. 12, pp. 123–13). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  17. Ha, T. T., & Harpham, T. (2005). Primary education in Vietnam: Extra classes and outcomes. International Education Journal, 6(5), 626–634.Google Scholar
  18. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, J. M., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 26–33.Google Scholar
  20. Kuban, D. (2011). Dersane mi Istersiniz, Öğretim mi? [Would you like private tutoring or teaching?]. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik, 1282(2), 14.Google Scholar
  21. Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2005). Targeted remedial education for underperforming teenagers: Costs and Benefits. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 839–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, J.-T., Kim, Y.-B., & Yoon, C.-H. (2004). The effects of pre-class tutoring on student achievement: challenges and implications for public education in Korea. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 1(1), 25–42.Google Scholar
  23. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mendes, A., Costa, J. A., Ventura, A., Azevedo, S., & Gouveia, A. (2013). Private tutoring in Portugal: Patterns and impact at different levels of education. In M. Bray, A. E. Mazawi, & R. G. Sultana (Eds.), Private tutoring across the Mediterranean: Power dynamics and implications for learning and equity (pp. 151–165). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MoNE (Ministry of National Education). (2010). Ortaöğretim 2009 ÖBBS Raporu [Report on 2009 Assessment of Students Achievement in Secondary Education]. Ankara: Educational Research and Development Division.Google Scholar
  27. MoNE (Ministry of National Education). (2011). National education statistics, formal education, 2010–2011. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.Google Scholar
  28. MSPC (Measurement, selection and placement centre) (2008). Homepage. http://www.osym.gov.tr/ana-sayfa/1-0/20081110.html. Accessed 10 November 2008.
  29. MSPC (Measurement, selection and placement centre) (2013). Homepage. http://www.osym.gov.tr/ana-sayfa/1-0/20130801.html. Accessed 1 August 2013.
  30. O’Brien, V., Martinez-Pons, M., & Kopala, M. (1999). Mathematics self-efficacy, ethnic identity, gender, and career interests related to mathematics and science. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Popa, S. (2007). Defensible spaces: Ideologies of professionalism and teacher’s work in the Romanian private tutoring system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  34. Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Suryadarma, D., Suryahadi, A., Sumarto, S., & Rogers, F. H. (2006). Improving student performance in public primary schools in developing countries: Evidence from Indonesia. Education Economics, 14(4), 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabachnick, G. B., & Fidell, S. N. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Tansel, A. & F. Bircan (2008). Private supplementary tutoring in Turkey: Recent evidence on its various aspects. IZA Discussion Paper No: 3471. Bonn, Germany: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit/Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  38. Tansel, A. (2013a). Supplementary education in Turkey: Recent developments and future prospects. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows? An Introduction to world-wide supplementary education. International Perspectives on Education and Society series (Vol. 22, pp. 23–66). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  39. Tansel, A. (2013b). Private tutoring and inequitable opportunities in Turkey: Challenges and policiy implications. In M. Bray, A. E. Mazawi, & R. G. Sultana (Eds.), Private tutoring across the Mediterranean: Power dynamics and implications for learning and equity (pp. 177–186). Rotterdam: Sense publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tansel, A & Bircan, F. (2005). Effect of private tutoring on university entrance examination performance in Turkey. IZA Discussion Paper No: 1609. Bonn, Germany: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit/Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  41. Tansel, A., & Bircan, F. (2006). Demand for education in Turkey: A tobit analysis of private tutoring expenditures. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. TED (Turkish Educational Society). (2005). Turkiye’de Üniversiteye Giriş Sistemi Araştırması ve Çözüm Önerileri [An Investigation of the Universty Entrance System in Turkey and Proposals for Solution]. Ankara: TED Publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Mathematics and Science EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)Bonn, Germany and Economic Research Forum (ERF)CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options