1. Introduction
After-school tutoring has a long history in China. With China’s success in poverty alleviation, a growing number of families are able to afford after-school tutoring in order to give their children a head start and secure their life-long development. As of 2021, the after-school tutoring industry in China added up to around 2 trillion yuan, equivalent to 2% of the national GDP, with about 40% contributed by primary and secondary school students [1]. Of the students, 47.8% spend more than 1600 yuan monthly on after-school tutoring and nearly 20% over 3200 yuan [2]. Since 1955, China has released a series of regulations on academic burden alleviation. Despite some progress, the academic pressure on students and the economic pressure on parents have not been substantially relieved. To deal with the excessive burden on students, relying on regulation of either school education or after-school tutoring failed to achieve the expected results. Therefore, in July 2021, the General Office of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued the Opinions on Further Reducing Students’ Homework and After-School Tutoring Pressure (the “Double Reduction” Policy), which marked the beginning of two-way governance. Although the “Double Reduction” policy is mainly aimed at reducing the burden of students in compulsory education, it is specified that while implementing the double reduction for students in compulsory education stage, all provinces should also make overall plans for regulating after-school tutoring for students aged 3 to 6. Online tutoring for preschool children shall be forbidden. Offline tutoring on school disciplines (including foreign language) for preschool children in the name of “pre-school classes”, “kindergarten transition classes”, “thinking training classes”, shall be strictly prohibited. With the launch of these strictest regulations on after-school tutoring, discipline tutoring waned, putting the already popular after-school tutoring for preschool children in full swing. However, there is still a series of problems and issues in this field caused by advanced teaching and inflated prices, including the unwillingness to have a baby considering the high cost of raising a child, high levels of parenting anxiety aroused by buzzwords such as “Haidian mothers” (refers to a female group who lives in Haidian District of Beijing, and pays all her physical and mental energy for her children’s education) and “tiger parenting” (a form of strict parenting, whereby parents are highly invested in ensuring their children’s success), and the paradox of middle-class families maintaining or climbing up the social ladder through education investment. In the industry of after-school tutoring for preschool children, marketing slogans such as “winning a head start,” “whole brain development” and “physical enhancement” stimulate parents, who expect to show their love by “buying hope” for their children. Can such tutoring promote children’s development? Can after-school tutoring continue to empower children’s development? To answer these questions, this study explores the impact of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s learning and development.
2. Literature Review
2.1. After-School Tutoring and Children’s Academic Development
After-school tutoring is a series of activities that take place outside the mainstream schools and support mainstream school education. It is a product of mainstream school education, with its nature, scale and curriculum changing alongside mainstream education. International academic communities usually refer to extra-curricular tutoring or after-school tutoring as “shadow education” [3,4]. China’s “Double Reduction” Policy divides after-school tutoring into discipline tutoring and nondiscipline tutoring, and it highlights the distinction among nondiscipline tutoring categories. Others call them “extra-curricular tutoring” and “interest-oriented art and sports classes” [5]. It is common for children to participate in after-school tutoring across the world [6,7,8,9]. Research on after-school tutoring shows that family capital, parents’ educational expectations, compensation factors, and interests might affect children’s participation in after-school tutoring. Among these variables, family socioeconomic status is a widely studied factor. According to research, parents with higher family socioeconomic status have a positive attitude towards their children’s participation in after-school tutoring [10] and are more likely to have their children tutored [11,12,13,14].
There is no consistent evidence on whether after-school tutoring has an impact on students’ academic performance. Some studies have pointed to a significant positive impact [15,16]. For example, based on a survey of 130 compulsory education schools in six provinces in China, Xue Haiping and colleagues find that disadvantaged students who participate in after-school tutoring perform significantly better than those who do not [17]. A randomized control trial study involving 1840 elementary students in England reveals that after two years of after-school tutoring, students’ reading and math scores improved slightly, and so did their competence [18]. In contrast, some studies have shown that after-school tutoring has a significant negative impact on students’ academic performance [19,20,21]. For example, students who receive after-school tutoring in English, mathematics, and science do not perform better than those who receive no tutoring and are even worse in English [22].
Research findings vary regarding whether after-school tutoring is more effective for younger students. Most studies believe that the effect is not necessarily better [23]. For example, some studies discover that the positive impact of after-school tutoring on the academic performance of primary school students is limited, the main reason being that the learning cognitive bias of primary school students causes subsequent learning difficulties [24]. After-school tutoring has a positive effect on improving the academic performance of junior high school students; its effect is much greater than that on junior high school students [25]. However, a South Korean longitudinal study comes to a different conclusion as it finds that participation in after-school tutoring has a positive effect on the cognitive performance of students in grades 4, 7, and 10, and the effect is more pronounced at lower educational stages [26]. Students’ academic performance will be affected to varying degrees by the duration of their participation in after-school tutoring, the region where it takes place, and the disciplines [27,28].
2.2. After-School Tutoring for Preschool Children and Their Learning and Development
Preschoolers’ after-school tutoring mainly refers to paid educational services outside preschool programs for children aged 3 to 6, such as interest-oriented classes and specialty training classes [29]. The National Institute of Education Sciences finds that more than 60% of preschool children in urban China attend after-school tutoring [30], which has become a common experience for many preschool children [6]. In this aspect, empirical studies mainly focus on the effect of after-school tutoring on children while taking their gender, type of participation, and family socioeconomic status into consideration. It is found that there are significantly more girls participating in after-school tutoring than boys [31], and the categories of after-school tutoring for girls are more diverse. Boys are more likely to participate in sports-related tutoring, while girls may also attend various types of art-related tutoring to develop their artistic skills [32,33]. Family socioeconomic status is a major factor affecting preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring [34], which is of particular benefit for the cognitive and socio-emotional development of disadvantaged children [35,36,37].
Regarding the effect of preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring, the results are mixed. Surveys on preschool children reveal that after-school tutoring is positively associated with children’s cognitive and language development, but not to social-emotional development [38,39]. Other studies also support that after-school tutoring can promote preschool children’s development in terms of mathematics, reading, and art, especially for disadvantaged children [36,40,41,42]. Some researchers studied a group of preschool children aged 3 to 5 in mainland China and found that after controlling their prior development, the more after-school tutoring the children attend, the better cognitive performance they have [39]. Some researchers also discover that preschool children who participate in after-school tutoring fail to outperform those who do not [42,43]. Based on a survey of 984 Chinese preschool children, researchers find that, except for the significant differences in social emotions, there are no significant differences in other fields for preschool children who have participated in after-school tutoring [44]. There is no significant positive impact on curiosity and interest in learning [29]. Another study finds that participation in art-related tutoring during the early years can predict mathematics performance of children in grades 1 to 3, while participation in physical-education-related tutoring has a predictive effect on mathematics performance of children in grade 3 [41].
2.3. The Current Study
The existing research on after-school tutoring primarily focuses on school-aged children, mainly examining the relationship between family socioeconomic status and students’ participation in after-school tutoring, and the relationship between after-school tutoring and students’ academic performance. Based on the different forms of after-school tutoring, different backgrounds and different students, researchers from various countries have drawn different conclusions [5]. In the research object selection, there are preschool children, primary school students, middle school students, and high school students; in the choice of academic performance, Chinese researchers mostly use the Chinese Education Panel Survey (CEPS) where parents report children’s performance analysis; Turkey, South Korea, Hong Kong [45], and Germany are mostly based on mathematics, reading, language, PISA and other results as the dependent variable analysis, and scholars have explored the effect of a discipline [46]. In the form of after-school tutoring, most studies choose the form of group tutoring or private tutoring, and a small part of the study focuses on the patterns of school-provided tutoring [47]. In most cases, quantitative methods are adopted, with a longitudinal design or cross-sectional design, combined with growth mixed modeling, social–ecological modeling, regression analysis, hierarchical linear modeling and structural equation modeling. Some studies did not take into account the intensity, type and quality of after-school tutoring, which may also be one of the reasons for inconsistent conclusions. Given the differences in sampling and methods, the research conclusions differ. Due to the increasing education competition, more and more children aged 3 to 6 are participating in after-school tutoring. Internationally, there are few longitudinal studies on the impact of after-school tutoring on the learning and development of children aged 3 to 6. Previous studies on China’s after-school tutoring mainly focus on the effect of children’s participation in after-school tutoring on academic performance in compulsory education, and more studies have concluded that there is no effect. However, some disadvantaged children with excellent performance are likely to benefit from after-school tutoring. There are relatively few empirical studies on after-school tutoring for preschool children, and the results focus on some or several aspects of children’s development, such as mathematical, reading skills and social skills or academic readiness [48,49]. There is more attention on the immediate effect for after-school tutoring. This study conducted a comprehensive assessment of children’s development—involving children’s cognitive development, socio-emotional development, motor development, language and emergent literacy, health, cultural knowledge and participation hygiene, safety, and approaches to learning—using a longitudinal study to analyze the immediate and subsequent effects of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s development, hoping to explore the comprehensiveness and long-term effect of participation in after-school tutoring. This study attempts to explore whether participating in after-school tutoring can promote the learning and development of this age group. The research questions are as follows.
-
What are the factors that influence preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring?
-
Does after-school tutoring in the early years have an immediate and lasting impact on children’s learning and development?
Based on the literature review and the research questions, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses.
Family socioeconomic status has a significant positive influence on preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring.
After-school tutoring in the early years does not have an immediate or lasting impact on children’s learning and development.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
This study took place in Jinzhong City, located in Shanxi Province, China. Economically, Jinzhong City is a relatively underdeveloped area with a small gap in per capita GDP among districts and counties. There are two phases of data collection. In the first phase, the baseline data is derived by using a stratified sampling [50]. Seven, eight and two kindergartens were selected in cities, counties, villages and small towns, and a total of 17 kindergartens were selected as sample kindergartens. In each preschool, three classrooms were selected, with one for each age group (3 to 4; 4 to 5; and 5 to 6 years old). Then an equal number of boys and girls were randomly selected from each classroom. On the basis of the informed consent signed by parents, the respondents were determined. After excluding invalid subjects such as incomplete questionnaire filling and children abandoning on-site tests, a total of 664 preschool children and their parents participated in this study, including 337 boys and 327 girls. There are 236 children from 3- to 4-year-old classrooms, 205 children from 4- to 5-year-old classrooms, and 223 from 5- to 6-year-old classrooms. In the second phase, data were collected one year later. Because the children from 5- to 6-year-old classrooms in the baseline have already entered primary school, the follow-up data only cover the children from the other two age groups. Thus, the follow-up data of 367 children were obtained, including 200 children from 3- to 4-year-old classrooms and 167 from 4- to 5-year-old classrooms who were involved in baseline data collection, as presented in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. East Asia-Pacific Early Child Development Scales
This study uses the East Asia Pacific Early Child Development Scale (EAP-ECDS) to assess children’s learning and development. The EAP-ECDS was developed by a research team from the University of Hong Kong, and have been validated in a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including mainland China. After several rounds of revision, the EAP-ECDS has high reliability and validity in various countries [51]. The EAP-ECDS consists of seven areas, namely cognitive development, socio-emotional development, motor development, language and emergent literacy, health, hygiene and safety, cultural knowledge and participation, and approaches to learning. The EAP-ECDS was administered individually by professionally trained researchers in a separate classroom. During the EAP-ECDS administration, children were expected to give verbal responses, make identifications, read or arrange pictures, complete hand manipulation, walk in a straight line, catch a ball, and write or draw, as required by the researchers. The EAP-ECDS scores ranged from 0 to 2 for each item based on the children’s performance. The higher a child scores in an area, the higher his/her level of development.
3.2.2. Questionnaire on Preschool Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring
In this study, a questionnaire is used to examine whether children participate in after-school tutoring. Those who do are marked as 1 and those do not as 0. In addition, information about the children, their family and their preschool are also collected as control variables, including children’s gender, their family socioeconomic status, the daily reading time their family spends with them, the daily play time their family spends with them, the areas where their preschools are located, as well as their lead teacher’s bianzhi, professional title, and honor, as presented in Table 2.
3.3. Data Analysis
The traditional Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method based on the assumption of random assignment will increase the probability of sample selection bias and counterfactual estimation bias. Therefore, this study adopts Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for estimation of treatment effects in a counterfactual simulation state to assess the effect of after-school tutoring on children’s learning and development [53]. The PSM method is an effective way to solve the sample selection bias in this study [54]. Matching can achieve the balance of the covariate distribution of the groups participating in the after-school tutoring and those who do not, to eliminate the influence of the difference in interference variables in the sample as much as possible [55]. At the operational level, the PSM method matches individuals in the treated group with individuals with similar characteristics in the untreated group on the basis of the propensity score estimated by the Logit or Probit model so as to compare those children who participate in after-school tutoring with those who do not in terms of difference in their learning and development, that is, the average treatment effect of the treated group (ATT). The model is expressed as follows [56].
In the above model, Yi1 and Yi0 represents the learning and development of children who participate in after-school tutoring and those who do not, respectively. Di is a dichotomous variable. The child who participates in after-school tutoring is marked as Di = 1; otherwise, Di = 0. p(X) is the probability of participating in after-school tutoring after factors concerning individuals, family and schools are controlled. To ensure the robustness of the estimated results, this study simultaneously uses neighbor matching, radius matching, Mahalanobis matching and kernel matching to estimate the effect of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s learning and development.
4. Results
4.1. Factors Influencing Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring
Table 3 presents the results of the analysis by Logit model of factors that affect children’s participation in after-school tutoring. It can be seen that factors such as gender, age, and family socioeconomic status have a significant impact. To be specific, the probability of girls participating in after-school tutoring is significantly higher than that of boys. The older the children, the lower the probability of participating in after-school tutoring. The higher the family socioeconomic status, the greater the probability of children participating in after-school tutoring.
4.2. Balance Test
When the PSM model is used to estimate the impact of after-school tutoring on children’s learning and development, a balance test should be carried out on the variables of the untreated group and the balance group. Table 4 presents the balance test results of nearest neighbor matching. As the results indicate, the standard errors of all covariates are reduced to varying degrees after matching, and the highest bias reduction occurs to family socioeconomic status and age, reaching 96.3% and 95.5%, respectively. The t-test results of each covariate in the treated group and the untreated group after matching are not significant. It shows that the matching effect is ideal, and the matched data eliminates the differences in various aspects between the children who participate in the after-school tutoring and those who do not.
In addition, Figure 1 shows the range of common value of the propensity score of whether children participate in after-school tutoring. It can be seen that in the untreated group who do not participate in after-school tutoring, only a few samples are off support, most of the samples are on support, and the samples essentially meet the requirements of supporting the hypotheses.
4.3. Estimation Results of PSM Model Based on Baseline Data
Based on the balance test, this study uses the nearest neighbor matching (1:2), the radius matching (0.01) and the kernel matching to estimate the impact of after-school tutoring on children’s learning and development. As shown in Table 5, the participation in after-school tutoring only significantly improves children’s language development after one year. Neither baseline data nor follow-up data reveal that the participation in after-school tutoring has significant effects on children’s learning and development in areas other than language and emergent literacy. Thus, generally speaking, children’s participation in after-school tutoring cannot effectively improve children’s learning and development.
4.4. Longitudinal Impact of the Participation in After-School Tutoring on Children’s Learning and Development
A subsampled analysis is conducted to gain insight into the longitudinal impact of after-school tutoring on the learning and development of children in different age groups. Table 6 presents the results of the impact of participation in after-school tutoring on the learning and development of children in different classes one year later. The study finds that there is no significant immediate improvement for children in 3- to 4-year-old classrooms, 4- to 5-year-old classrooms, and 5- to 6-year-old classrooms who have participated in after-school tutoring. The children in 3- to 4-year-old classrooms at baseline who have participated in after-school tutoring show significant improvement in socio-emotional development, language and emergent literacy, and approaches to learning after they enter 5- to 6-year-old classrooms. For children in 5- to 6-year-old classrooms at baseline who have received after-school tutoring, there is no improvement in any aspect when they enter 5- to 6-year-old classrooms. On the whole, participation in after-school tutoring has limited effect on the continuous improvement of children’s learning and development.
5. Discussion
5.1. Gender, Age, and Family Socioeconomic Status Are Important Factors That Affect Preschool Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring
This study finds that even in economically underdeveloped regions, more than two-thirds (68.4%) of preschool children still participate in after-school tutoring; this finding is similar to those of many studies in China. For example, 87.5% of children in Lanzhou, China participate in after-school tutoring [57], two-thirds of preschool children in Nanchang attend after-school tutoring [58], and about 85.41% of preschool children in Chengdu participate in at least 1 to 2 kinds of after-school tutoring courses [59]. After the introduction of the “Double Reduction” policy, a poll shows that 80% of parents choose nondisciplinary after-school tutoring for their children, and more than half of the children begin after-school tutoring at the age of 4 to 6 [60]. After-school tutoring is becoming universal and pursued by a younger group, and it has become a common phenomenon for preschool children to participate in after-school tutoring.
In terms of gender, girls are significantly more likely to participate in after-school tutoring than boys, which is consistent with many studies [32,33,34]. Reasons why parents choose after-school tutoring for their children include children’s interest, comparison, conformity, compensation, and no time for taking care of children due to work. Girls have more advantages in motor and perceptual activities [61]. Some studies reveal that parents send their children to after-school tutoring with the hope of helping them gain more future advantages in school, at work, and in marriage, and the motivation is stronger for girls’ parents [62]. There are diverse types of after-school tutoring for Chinese preschool children. With the gradual fading of gender-fixed expectations, girls have more options of after-school tutoring. In addition to art, more parents prefer taekwondo, basketball, and martial arts for their girls.
This study found that the participation rates of after-school tutoring from 3- to 4, 4 to -5, and 5 to -6-year-old classrooms were 54.4%, 45.6%, and 44.3%, respectively. In terms of the vertical proportion, as children grow older, the probability of them participating in after-school tutoring may become lower. This is consistent with the result that the participation rate of students decreases with the increase in the compulsory education stage [63]. However, it contradicts some researchers’ findings on preschool children that in the last two years of preschool education, the participation in after-school tutoring shows an average upward trend [64]. This is probably because Chinese preschool children generally attend after-school tutoring at an early age, with most of them participating in many early education classes at the age of 0 to 3. With the increase in tutoring programs, the effect is not significant. Another study finds that parents choose different tutoring institutions based on the age of their children, namely basics courses for 3- to 4-year-olds, comprehensive courses for 4- to 5-year-olds, and disciplinary classes for 5- to 6-year-olds [65]. In terms of specific types of after-school tutoring, parents tend to adjust or stop certain types of tutoring classes based on the effect of after-school tutoring and their children’s school courses.
In terms of family socioeconomic status, the higher it is, the greater the probability of children participating in after-school tutoring. This is consistent with the conclusions of related studies [10,13,37]. After-school tutoring classes and interest-oriented classes occupy a major proportion of China’s children’s education market [66]. According to 2022 China Childbearing Cost Report, the per capita expenditure of preschool children, including extra-curricular tutoring fees, is 21,559 yuan, and the annual parenting cost is 33,559 yuan, which is the highest among all age groups between 0 and 17 years old. Families with preschool children participating in after-school tutoring generally have desirable economic conditions and highlight children’s education but lack experience in educating children and are more concerned with training effects [59,65]. Economic conditions are a prerequisite that determines whether one can afford tens of thousands of yuan on after-school tutoring. Participation in after-school tutoring is characterized by social stratification. Families with better socioeconomic conditions pay more attention to the education of children, are more willing to invest time, energy and money on children, and are thus more likely to resort to after-school tutoring [66,67]. It can be seen that parents pay attention to the education of children but lack experience in educating children. By participating in after-school tutoring, they try to make up for the lack of experience and other issues and transfer the educational pressure and educational expectations to after-school tutoring, and they are thus more likely to resort to after-school tutoring.
5.2. Participation in After-School Tutoring Has No Significant Immediate Effect on Children’s Learning and Development
There is no consensus on whether after-school tutoring boosts students’ academic development in either the compulsory education stage or preschool stage. In this study, by using the propensity score matching, it is found that preschool children cannot significantly improve their learning and development through after-school tutoring, which is consistent with some existing research [35,68]. On the one hand, children’s learning and development are affected by a variety of factors. The preschool stage is a period of rapid individual development; the combined efforts of family, preschool, and social education can promote children’s physical, movement, language, cognition, emotion and social development. Another possible explanation is that this study does not explore the heterogeneity of the type of after-school tutoring, the duration of tutoring, and the form of tutoring, such as children participating in one or more types of after-school tutoring, in one-on-one or one-to-many tutoring, for 3 h or more per week. These factors all affect the extent and direction of children’s learning and development, and thus, they affect the effectiveness of after-school tutoring. This result echoes the scientific and necessary implementation of the “Double Reduction” policy. Children’s learning and development must follow the laws of physical and mental development. Preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring does not have an immediate effect on their learning and development. It also suggests that parents should neither blindly follow and rely too much on after-school tutoring nor transfer their educational anxiety and responsibilities to after-school tutoring institutions.
5.3. Participation in After-School Tutoring Has Limited Lasting Effect on Children’s Learning and Development
The subsample regression model reveals those children in 3- to 4-year-old classrooms who have participated in after-school tutoring had significant improvements in socio-emotional development, language, and approaches to learning when they enter 4- to 5-year-old classrooms. Previous studies also point out that after-school tutoring provides children with opportunities for creativity and self-discipline [69], which is conducive to high-quality peer interactions [70]. Compared with school learning and other activities, after-school tutoring offers children more teamwork and social interactions for increased initiative and emotional management [71]. Children in 4- to 5-year-old classrooms are in a period of rapid language development when they are willing to communicate and express themselves. Most of the after-school tutoring classes those preschool children participate in focus on art and sports, providing them with opportunities for language communication and social cooperation. These activities help develop children’s social cooperation and problem-solving skills as they involve communication skills, conflict resolution skills, and cooperation with peers. As children grow older, language expression and social communication skills gradually mature, which is one of the reasons why children are better in social and language development in 4- to 5-year-old classrooms. However, such lasting effect is only reflected in the stage from 3- to 4-year-old classrooms to 4- to 5-year-old classrooms. Through the conversation with children and related studies, we found that children from 4- to 5-year-old classrooms to 5- to 6-year-old classrooms had less interest and curiosity in after-school tutoring, with less willingness to participate [29,44]. With the increase in the difficulty of after-school tutoring, children are subject to “floor effect”, and the effect of after-school tutoring is not significant. Overall, the sustainability and empowering effect of preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring is limited.
6. Conclusions, Implication and Limitations
Based on the two-phase data collection, this study applies propensity score matching to explore the immediate and subsequent effect of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s learning and development. It is found that gender, age, and family socioeconomic status are key factors that affect children’s participation in after-school tutoring, which has no significant immediate effect on children’s learning and development. After the children in 3- to 4-year-old classrooms at baseline who have participated in after-school tutoring enter 4- to 5-year-old classrooms, they show a significant improvement in socio-emotional development, language, and approaches to learning, but the effect of after-school tutoring on subsequent improvement of children’s learning and development is limited. Based on the findings from this study, the following suggestions are proposed. First, the laws of children’s physical and mental development should be respected. Education conducted based on children’s development timetable is a guarantee of better outcomes. Advanced or incorrect tutoring will only increase the pressure on children and the economic burden on families. Second, the government should fully implement the “Double Reduction” policy and regulate after-school tutoring institutions that exaggerate and advance education. After the introduction of the “Double Reduction” policy, the government needs to pay attention to preschool children’s involvement in the after-school tutoring market while managing after-school tutoring institutions, guide parents to rationally view the role of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s development, and strictly regulate the false, exaggerated and advanced after-school tutoring, which is not the main cause of differences in children’s learning and development. Third, the “family-school-society” collaborative education system should be perfected. A person’s growth begins at home and grows at school before he/she finally serves the society. Family, school, and society belong to one educational community. The more closely they cooperate with one another, the greater the effect on children’s learning and development. Only by perfecting the collaborative educational system can we more effectively promote children’s comprehensive development.
This study has the following limitations. Firstly, it involves a relatively small sample from one city in China, so it has limited representativeness. Secondly, there are many missing samples in the follow-up data collection, especially after the baseline data collection, where the children who entered the primary school were not tracked. Thirdly, only one year of tracking is conducted, and the validity of the results cannot be discussed more comprehensively. Fourthly, this study fails to distinguish the type, duration, frequency and intensity of children’s participation in after-school tutoring. In the future research, the relations between science and society should be concerned [72], the follow-up plan should be adjusted, the sample size should be expanded, the types of after-school tutoring should be refined, and the immediate and subsequent effects of different types of after-school tutoring on children should be explored in depth. Further exploration of the structural and process quality of after-school tutoring will provide a factual basis for corroborating the effect of “Double Reduction” policy and promote the sustainable development of after-school tutoring institutions.
Design and collect questionnaires, and writing-original draft preparation, J.S.; Fund the project and writing-original draft preparation, H.X.; Analyze data, C.F.; Revise and edit the paper, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Research Ethics committee of the Capital Normal University.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data are available upon request to the corresponding author.
The authors thank all staff of Preschool Education Department in Jinzhong city, Shanxi province for their assistance in data collection.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Information for samples.
| Baseline Samples | Follow-Up Samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location of the Preschool (Number of Preschools) | Classrooms |
Boy | Girl | Total | Boy | Girl | Total |
| Cities (7) | 3- to -4-year-old (7) | 36 | 32 | 68 | 27 | 25 | 52 |
| 4- to -5-year-old (7) | 33 | 33 | 66 | 23 | 27 | 50 | |
| 5- to -6-year-old (7) | 42 | 43 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Counties (8) | 3- to -4-year-old (8) | 69 | 73 | 142 | 61 | 63 | 124 |
| 4- to -5-year-old (8) | 62 | 60 | 122 | 52 | 50 | 102 | |
| 5- to -6-year-old (8) | 61 | 57 | 118 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Villages and small towns (2) | 3- to -4-year-old (2) | 14 | 12 | 26 | 14 | 10 | 24 |
| 4- to -5-year-old (2) | 11 | 6 | 17 | 9 | 6 | 15 | |
| 5- to -6-year-old (2) | 13 | 7 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total (17) | 51 | 337 | 327 | 664 | 186 | 181 | 367 |
Study variables.
| Variable | Description and Coding | |
|---|---|---|
| Participation in after-school tutoring | 0 = No, 1 = Yes | |
| EAP-ECDS | Cognitive development | Fetching objects by number, counting, addition and subtraction of numbers, short-term memory, card sorting, standard sorting, and recognizing graphics. |
| Socio-emotional development | Polite behavior toward adults, seeking help from adults, taking perspectives, interacting positively with peers, recognizing emotions and resolving conflicts | |
| Motor development | Walking in balance, drinking water and eating independently, walking while carrying something, and catching a ball. | |
| Language and emergent literacy | Verbal expression (telling a story, and describing events/experiences), and pre-reading (recognizing words, drawing pictures according to templates, writing radicals independently, drawing graphics independently without referring to a template) | |
| Health, hygiene, and safety | Personal hygiene, safety behavior, human body knowledge, and hygiene behavior | |
| Cultural knowledge and participation | Cultural knowledge, participation in religious and spiritual or national activities, singing, clapping hands to form a rhythm. | |
| Approaches to learning | Self-control, persistence, curiosity and exploration | |
| Control variable | Gender | 0 = Girl, 1 = Boy |
| Age group | 1 = 3- to 4-year-old classrooms, 2 = 4- to 5-year-old classrooms, 3 = 5- to 6-year-old classrooms | |
| Family socioeconomic status | Educational background: 1 = junior high school or below, 2 = high school, higher vocational school, technical secondary school, 3 = college or above |
|
| Daily reading time spent with kids | 1 = Basically No, 2 = 1 to 10 min, 3 = 11 to 30 min, 4 = 31 to 60 min, 5 = Over 1 h | |
| Daily play time spent with kids | 1 = Basically No, 2 = 1 to 10 min, 3 = 11 to 30 min, 4 = 31 to 60 min, 5 = Over 1 h | |
| Location of the preschool | 1 = Villages and small towns, 2 = Counties (under the jurisdiction of municipality), 3 = Cities (municipality directly under the jurisdiction of the Central Government) | |
| Lead teacher’s bianzhi | Teacher’s bianzhi is a structural variable unique to the Chinese sociocultural and education system, having bianzhi means “teachers are within the public servant system of the government and have tenured positions in government-sponsored public preschools” [ |
|
| Lead teacher’s professional title | Teacher’s professional title is also a structural variable unique to the Chinese sociocultural and education system, which means that “teacher has achieved a certain level in the tiered professional rankings and has successfully met the relevant evaluation criteria” [ |
|
| Lead teacher’s honor | 1 = None, 2 = Backbone teacher of the preschool, 3 = District or county-level backbone teacher, 4 = City or state-level backbone teacher, 5 = Provincial or municipal-level backbone teachers | |
Factors influencing children’s participation in after-school tutoring.
| Variable | Participation in After-School Tutoring |
|---|---|
| Gender | −0.724 *** (0.219) |
| Age | −0.739 *** (0.137) |
| Family socioeconomic status | 0.263 *** (0.081) |
| Daily reading time spent with kids | 0.235 (0.189) |
| Daily play time spent with kids | −0.117 (0.142) |
| Location of the preschool | −0.117 (0.233) |
| Lead teacher’s bianzhi | 0.454 (0.366) |
| Lead teacher’s professional title | −0.033 (0.136) |
| Lead teacher’s honor | −0.104 (0.103) |
| Intercept | 1.411 ** (0.659) |
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Balance test results of nearest neighbor matching.
| Matching | Treated Group | Untreated Group | Reduction of Standard Errors(%) | Absolute Value of Reduction | t Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Before | 0.458 | 0.615 | −31.9 | 70.2 | −3.17 *** |
| After | 0.535 | 0.582 | −9.5 | −1.09 | ||
| Age | Before | 1.820 | 2.314 | −61.9 | 95.5 | −6.12 *** |
| After | 1.981 | 1.958 | 2.8 | 0.32 | ||
| Family socioeconomic status | Before | 5.488 | 4.832 | 40.6 | 96.3 | 4.01 *** |
| After | 5.134 | 5.159 | −1.5 | −0.18 | ||
| Daily reading time spent with kids | Before | 2.856 | 2.671 | 26.5 | 92.9 | 2.62 *** |
| After | 2.782 | 2.769 | 1.9 | 0.22 | ||
| Daily play time spent with kids | Before | 2.907 | 2.853 | 5.8 | 72.3 | 0.57 |
| After | 2.883 | 2.868 | 1.6 | 0.19 | ||
| Location of the preschool | Before | 2.293 | 2.209 | 21.4 | 88.1 | 2.11 ** |
| After | 2.194 | 3.852 | −2.6 | −0.30 | ||
| Lead teacher’s bianzhi | Before | 0.553 | 0.440 | 22.8 | 88.4 | 2.28 ** |
| After | 0.501 | 0.514 | −2.6 | −0.30 | ||
| Lead teacher’s professional title | Before | 2.473 | 2.251 | 15.7 | 90.7 | 1.56 |
| After | 2.333 | 2.312 | 1.5 | 0.17 | ||
| Lead teacher’s honor | Before | 1.820 | 1.993 | −15.1 | 59.9 | −1.54 |
| After | 1.902 | 1.833 | 6.1 | 0.73 |
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Effect of the participation in after-school tutoring on children’s learning and development.
| Interest-Oriented Class | CD | SED | MD | LEL | HYS | CKP | AT | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline data | Neighbor matching | ATT | −0.027 | −0.048 | −0.154 | 0.060 | −0.020 | −0.237 * | −0.150 |
| T Value | −0.22 | −0.37 | −1.18 | 0.49 | −0.15 | −1.99 | −1.15 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | 0.056 | 0.012 | −0.057 | 0.091 | −0.012 | −0.169 | −0.086 | |
| T Value | 0.49 | 0.11 | −0.49 | 0.81 | −0.10 | −1.55 | −0.74 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | 0.048 | 0.009 | −0.064 | 0.087 | −0.016 | −0.175 | −0.083 | |
| T Value | 0.42 | 0.08 | −0.55 | 0.77 | −0.13 | −1.60 | −0.72 | ||
| Follow-up data | Neighbor matching | ATT | 0.003 | 0.099 | 0.013 | 0.145 | 0.027 | −0.019 | 0.152 |
| T Value | 0.03 | 0.70 | 0.09 | 1.98 * | 0.22 | −0.13 | 0.89 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | 0.071 | 0.135 | −0.010 | 0.240 ** | 0.083 | 0.004 | 0.385 | |
| T Value | 0.58 | 1.13 | −0.09 | 1.94 | 0.80 | 0.04 | 2.67 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | 0.072 | 0.133 | −0.006 | 0.233 ** | 0.082 | 0.006 | 0.378 | |
| T Value | 0.59 | 1.11 | −0.05 | 1.88 | 0.79 | 0.05 | 2.62 |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. CD = Cognitive development; SED = Socio–emotional development; MD = Motor development; LEL = Language and emergent literacy; HYS = Health hygiene and safety; CKP = Cultural knowledge and participation; AT = Approaches to learning.
Effect of the participation in after-school tutoring on children’s learning and development for different age groups.
| Interest-Oriented Class | CD | SED | MD | LEL | HYS | CKP | AT | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline data of children in 3- to 4-year-old classrooms | Neighbor matching | ATT | 0.285 * | 0.301 | 0.080 | 0.037 | 0.093 | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| t value | 1.72 | 1.61 | 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.11 | 0.01 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | 0.250 | 0.320 * | 0.082 | 0.057 | −0.021 | −0.019 | 0.001 | |
| t value | 1.61 | 1.77 | 0.42 | 0.41 | −0.09 | −0.11 | 0.01 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | 0.244 | 0.301 * | 0.068 | 0.038 | −0.039 | −0.030 | −0.016 | |
| t value | 1.57 | 1.66 | 0.35 | 0.28 | −0.16 | −0.18 | −0.07 | ||
| Follow-up data of children entering 4- to 5-year-old classrooms | Neighbor matching | ATT | 0.043 | 0.401 ** | 0.111 | 0.432 ** | 0.266 | 0.288 | 0.483 ** |
| t value | 0.13 | 2.15 | 0.60 | 2.19 | 1.33 | 1.35 | 1.98 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | −0.009 | 0.379 ** | 0.046 | 0.375 ** | 0.306 * | 0.291 | 0.621 ** | |
| t value | −0.06 | 2.24 | 0.28 | 2.15 | 1.78 | 1.51 | 2.74 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | −0.007 | 0.365 ** | 0.059 | 0.369 ** | 0.298 * | 0.283 | 0.602 *** | |
| t value | −0.05 | 2.15 | 0.36 | 2.11 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 2.65 | ||
| Baseline data of children in 4- to 5-year-old classrooms | Neighbor matching | ATT | −0.089 | −0.104 | −0.175 | −0.272 | −0.209 | −0.206 | −0.097 |
| t value | −0.57 | −0.43 | −0.86 | −1.39 | −1.13 | −0.90 | −0.58 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | −0.107 | −0.022 | −0.127 | −0.264 | −0.155 | −0.230 | 0.035 | |
| t value | −0.75 | −0.11 | −0.70 | −1.57 | −0.99 | −1.23 | 0.23 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | −0.108 | −0.027 | −0.136 | −0.267 | −0.168 | −0.223 | 0.026 | |
| t value | −0.76 | −0.13 | −0.75 | −1.59 | −1.07 | −1.20 | 0.17 | ||
| Follow-up data of children entering 5- to 6-year-old classrooms | Neighbor matching | ATT | −0.033 | −0.234 | −0.158 | −0.005 | −0.198 * | −0.252 | −0.020 |
| t value | −0.19 | −1.24 | −0.70 | −0.05 | −1.92 | −1.55 | −0.11 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | 0.027 | −0.215 | −0.212 | 0.043 | −0.133 | −0.208 | 0.047 | |
| t value | 0.18 | −1.30 | −1.04 | 0.34 | −1.35 | −1.46 | 0.28 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | 0.017 | −0.214 | −0.216 | 0.054 | −0.135 | −0.211 | 0.057 | |
| t value | 0.11 | −1.29 | −1.06 | 0.43 | −1.36 | −1.48 | 0.33 | ||
| Baseline data of children in 5- to 6-year-old classrooms | Neighbor matching | ATT | −0.038 | −0.211 | −0.256 | 0.048 | −0.115 | −0.366 * | −0.156 |
| t value | −0.19 | −0.89 | −1.18 | 0.27 | −0.48 | −1.71 | −0.63 | ||
| Radius matching | ATT | −0.074 | −0.227 | −0.210 | 0.087 | −0.127 | −0.289 | −0.227 | |
| t value | −0.41 | −1.06 | −1.07 | 0.55 | −0.58 | −1.47 | −1.01 | ||
| Kernel matching | ATT | −0.064 | −0.204 | −0.203 | 0.096 | −0.106 | −0.275 | −0.236 | |
| t value | −0.36 | −0.96 | −1.04 | 0.59 | −0.49 | −1.42 | −1.06 |
Note: Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. CD = Cognitive development; SED = Socio–emotional development; MD = Motor development; LEL = Language & emergent literacy; HYS = Health hygiene, & safety; CKP = Cultural knowledge & participation; AT = Approaches to learning.
References
1. Being Fined from an Off-Campus Training Institution to Being a “4:30 Mother”, Who Will Solve the “Pain” of Education?. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/talking/2021-05/11/c1211150628.htm (accessed on 11 May 2021).
2. Where Should Off-Campus Training Go?. Available online: https://news.cctv.com/2021/05/21/ARTIaegyiSQTJlennk6I5d7O210521.shtml (accessed on 21 May 2021).
3. Bray, T.M. The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring and Its Implications for Planners; UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning: Paris, France, 1999.
4. Bray, M. Confronting the Shadow Education System: What Government Policies for What Private Tutoring?; UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP): Paris, France, 2009.
5. Bray, M. Private Supplementary Tutoring: Comparative Perspectives on Pattern and Implication. Comp. A J. Comp. Int. Educ.; 2005; 36, pp. 515-530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920601024974]
6. Simoncini, K.; Caltabiono, N. Young school-aged children’s behavior and their participation in extracurricular activities. Aust. J. Early Child.; 2012; 37, pp. 35-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/183693911203700306]
7. Dunn, J.S.; Kinney, D.A.; Hofferth, S.L. Parental ideologies and children’s after-school activities. Am. Behav. Sci.; 2003; 46, pp. 1359-1386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764203046010006]
8. Simpkins, S.D.; Ripke, M.; Huston, A.C.; Eccles, J.S. Predicting participation and outcomes in out-of-school activities: Similarities and differences across social ecologies. New Dir. Youth Dev.; 2005; 105, pp. 51-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.107]
9. Xu, L.; Gauthier, A.H.; Strohschein, L. Why are some children left out? Factors barring Canadian children from participating in extracurricular activities. Can. Stud. Popul.; 2009; 36, pp. 325-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25336/P6CW3H]
10. Zinnecker, J. Growing Up in Europe: Contemporary Horizons in Childhood and Youth Studies. the Cultural Modernization of Childhood; Chisholm, L.; Büchner, P.; Krüger, H.H.; Bois-Reymond, M.D. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG: Berlin, Germany, 1995; pp. 85-94.
11. McNeal, R.B., Jr. Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociol. Educ.; 1995; 68, pp. 62-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112764]
12. Zill, N. Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior, and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data; Westat, Inc.: Rockville, MD, USA, 1995.
13. Sallis, J.F.; Zakarian, J.M.; Hovell, M.F.; Hofstetter, C.R. Ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex differences in physical activity among adolescents. J. Clin. Epidemiol.; 1996; 49, pp. 125-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00514-5]
14. Xue, H.P. Family Capital and Educational Attainment: A Shadow Education Perspective. Educ. Sci. Res.; 2017; 263, pp. 31-48.
15. Kim, H. Can the Academic Achievement of Korean Students be Portrayed as a Product of “Shadow Achievement”?. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev.; 2015; 16, pp. 119-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9361-1]
16. Tansel, A.; Bircan Bodur, F. Private Supplementary Tutoring in Turkey Recent Evidence on Its Various Aspects. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ.; 2008; 9, pp. 162-171.
17. Xue, H.P.; Wang, D.; Wu, X.W. The Impact of Private Tutoring on Left-Behind Students’ Academic Achievements in Chinese Compulsory Education. Pek. Univ. Educ. Rev.; 2014; 12, pp. 50-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2014.03.005]
18. Siddiqui, N.; Gorard, S.; See, B.H. Can learning beyond the classroom impact on social responsibility and academic attainment? An evaluation of the Children’s University youth social action programme. Stud. Educ. Eval.; 2019; 61, pp. 74-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.004]
19. Guill, K.; Bos, W. Effectiveness of Private Tutoring in Mathematics with Regard to Subjective and Objective Indicators of Academic Achievement: Evidence from a German Secondary School Sample. J. Educ. Res. Online; 2014; 6, pp. 34-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25656/01:8840]
20. Lee, J.T.; Kim, Y.B.; Yoon, C.H. The Effects of Pre-class Tutoring on Student Achievement Challenges and Implications for Public Education in Korea. Kedi. J. Educ. Policy; 2004; 1, pp. 25-42.
21. Steinmann, I.; Strietholt, R.; Caro, D. Participation in extracurricular activities and student achievement: Evidence from German all-day schools. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv.; 2019; 30, pp. 155-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1540435]
22. Kenny, D.T.; Faunce, G. Effects of academic coaching on elementary and secondary school students. J. Educ. Res.; 2004; 98, pp. 115-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.2.115]
23. Darling, N.; Caldwell, L.L.; Smith, R. Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. J. Leis. Res.; 2005; 37, pp. 51-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950040]
24. Liu, D.Z. Primary school students’ extracurricular tutoring does more harm than good. J. Chin. Soc. Educ.; 2014; 259, pp. 19-23.
25. Zhang, Y.; Chen, D.; Liu, J. The effect of private tutoring during primary education on the academic development in middle school-A longitudinal study in a certain middle school in Beijing. Res. Educ. Dev.; 2015; 35, pp. 18-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2015.z2.004]
26. Ha, Y.; Park, H.J. Can after-school programs and private tutoring help improve students’ achievement? Revisiting the effects in Korean secondary schools. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev.; 2017; 18, pp. 65-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9451-8]
27. Choi, J. Unequal Access to Shadow Education and Its Impacts on Academic Outcomes: Evidence from Korea. 2017; Available online: http://inequality.kr/2013-2/?uid=19&action=kboard_file_download&kboard-file-download-nonce=beab776a85&file=file2 (accessed on 14 October 2017).
28. Bray, M.; Zhan, S.; Lykins, C.; Wang, D.; Kwo, O. Differentiated demand for private supplementary tutoring: Patterns and implications in Hong Kong secondary education. Econ. Educ. Rev.; 2014; 38, pp. 24-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.10.002]
29. Shi, J.; Liu, H.; Liu, Y. “Win on The Starting Line” or “Win All The Life”?—The Influence of Shadow Education and Learnig Approaches on Children’s Learning and Development. Forum. Contemp. Educ.; 2020; 5, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13694/j.cnki.ddjylt.20200628.001]
30. Yi, L.Y. Over 60% of urban preschool children participated in interest classes. China Education News; 29 July 2013.
31. Aumètre, F.; Poulin, F. Trajectories of breadth of participation in organized activity during childhood. Soc. Dev.; 2016; 25, pp. 352-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12142]
32. Denault, A.; Poulin, F. Predictors of adolescent participation in organized activities: A five-year longitudinal study. J. Res. Adolesc.; 2009; 19, pp. 287-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00597.x]
33. Eccles, J.S.; Barber, B.L. Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters?. J. Adolesc. Res.; 1999; 14, pp. 10-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003]
34. Ren, L.; Tong, X.; Xu, W.; Wu, Z.; Zhou, X.; Hu, B.Y. Distinct patterns of organized activity participation and their associations with school readiness among Chinese preschoolers. J. Sch. Psychol.; 2021; 86, pp. 100-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.007] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34051907]
35. Burger, K. How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Child. Res. Q; 2010; 25, pp. 140-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.11.001]
36. Halpern, R. A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teach. Coll. Rec.; 2002; 104, pp. 178-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00160]
37. Hausner, M.E.I. The Impact of Kindergarten Intervention Project Accelerated Literacy on Emerging Literacy Concepts and Second Grade Reading Comprehension. Master’s Thesis; Loyola University Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 2000.
38. Ren, L.; Zhang, X. Antecedents and consequences of organized extracurricular activities among Chinese preschoolers in Hong Kong. Learn. Instr.; 2020; 65, 101267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101267]
39. Ren, L.; Traci, S.H.K.; Pavel, C.H.; Fan, J.Q.; Li, X. The linear and nonlinear effects of organized extracurricular activities on Chinese preschoolers’ development. Contemp. Educ. Psych.; 2020; 60, 101845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101845]
40. Covay, E.; Carbonaro, W. After the bell: Participation in extracurricular activities, classroom behavior, and academic achievement. Sociol. Educ.; 2010; 83, pp. 20-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040709356565]
41. Dumais, S.A. Elementary school students’ extracurricular activities: The effects of participation on achievement and teachers’ evaluations. Sociol. Spectr.; 2006; 26, pp. 117-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732170500444593]
42. Park, H.; Lin, C.H.; Liu, C.; Tabb, K.M. The relationships between after-school programs, academic outcomes, and behavioral developmental outcomes of Latino children from immigrant families: Findings from the 2005 National Household Education Surveys Program. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.; 2015; 53, pp. 77-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.019]
43. Kremer-Sadlik, T.; Izquierdo, C.; Fatigante, M. Making meaning of everyday practices: Parents’ attitudes toward children’s extracurricular activities in the United States and in Italy. Anthr. Educ. Quart; 2010; 41, pp. 35-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01066.x]
44. Shi, J.; Liu, H. The Survey Study for Learning and Developmental Status of Young Children Aged 3–6: The Research Results of EAR -ECDS in Shanxi Province. J. Shanghai Educ. Res.; 2019; pp. 48-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16194/j.cnki.31-1059/g4.2019.08.010]
45. Li, J.L. The Determinants and Impacts of Private Tutoring in and out of School in Hong Kong. Best Evid. Chin. Educ.; 2021; 9, pp. 1281-1282.
46. Narimo, S.; Anggraini, S.; Suranto, S.; Sari, D.E.; Musthapa, R. Analysis of effectiveness of economics subject tutoring after school. J. Pendidik. Ilmu Sosial; 2022; 32, pp. 96-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23917/jpis.v32i1.18844]
47. Bray, M.; Ventura, A. Multiple systems, multiple shadows: Diversity of supplementary tutoring received by private-school students in Dubai. Int. J. Educ. Dev.; 2022; 92, 102624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102624]
48. Ren, L.; Hu, B.Y.; Wu, H.; Zhang, X.; Davis, A.N.; Hsiao, Y.Y. Differential associations between extracurricular participation and Chinese children’s academic readiness: Preschool teacher–child interactions as a moderator. Early Child. Res. Q.; 2022; 59, pp. 134-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.11.006]
49. Ren, L.; Chen, J.; Li, X.; Wu, H.; Fan, J.; Li, L. Extracurricular activities and Chinese children’s school readiness: Who benefits more?. Child Dev.; 2021; 92, pp. 1028-1047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13456]
50. MacEachern, S.N.; Stasny, E.A.; Wolfe, D.A. Judgement post-stratification with imprecise rankings. Biometrics; 2004; 60, pp. 207-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00144.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15032791]
51. Rao, N.; Sun, J.; Ng, M.; Becher, Y.; Lee, D.; Ip, P.; Bacon-Shone, J. Validation, Finalization and Adoption of the East Asia-Pacific Early Child Development Scales (EAP-ECDS); UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
52. Hu, B.; Mak, M.; Neizel, J.; Li, K.; Fan, X. Predictors of Chinese early childhood program quality: Implications for policies. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.; 2016; 70, pp. 152-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.013]
53. Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am. Stat.; 1985; 39, pp. 33-38.
54. Stuart, E.A. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. Rev.; 2010; 25, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313]
55. Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. J. R. Stat. Soc. B; 1983; 45, pp. 212-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1983.tb01242.x]
56. Abadie, A.; Imbens, G.W. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrical; 2006; 74, pp. 235-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x]
57. Gao, J. The Study of Pre-school Children’s Participation in Hobby Classes in the Kindergarten A of Lanzhou City. Master’s Thesis; Northwest Normal University: Lanzhou, China, 2013.
58. Feng, L.J. The Present Situation and Suggestions for Children’s Interest in Kindergarten. Bachelor’s Thesis; Jiangxi Normal University: Jiangxi, China, 2018.
59. Huang, B.S. Guardian to Baby Interest Class Demand Present Situation Investigation and Study—Take the Chengdu Five Cities as the Example; Sichuan Normal University: Chengdu, China, 2017.
60. After the “Double Reduction”, 80% of the Interviewed Parents Signed up Their Children for Interest Classes, and the Quality of Teachers was Concerned. Available online: https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20211119A02UFG00 (accessed on 19 November 2021).
61. Gil Madrona, P.; Romero Martínez, S.J.; Sáez-Gallego, N.M.; Ordóñez Camacho, X.G. Psychomotor limitations of overweight and obese five-year-old children: Influence of body mass indices on motor, perceptual, and social-emotional skills. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030427]
62. Fong, V.L. Only Hope: Coming of Age under China’s One-Child Policy; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2004.
63. Dawes, N.P.; Modecki, K.L.; Gonzales, N.; Dumka, L.; Millsap, R. Mexican-origin youth participation in extracurricular activities: Predicting trajectories of involvement from 7th to 12th Grade. J. Youth Adolesc.; 2015; 44, pp. 2172-2188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0284-2]
64. Denault, A.S.; Poulin, F. Trajectories of participation in organized activities and outcomes in young adulthood. Appl. Dev. Sci.; 2019; 23, pp. 74-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1308829]
65. Li, Y.X. Investigation and Research on Preschool Children’s Parents Choosing Preschool Training Institutions under the Background of “Inspire kids” Hot. J. Heilongjiang Inst. Teach. Dev.; 2021; 40, pp. 77-80.
66. Lin, X.S. “Purchasing Hope”: The Consumption of Children Education in Urban China. Sociol Stud.; 2018; 33, pp. 163-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40711-019-0099-8]
67. We, Y.; Xue, H.P. Determinants of Household Expenditures on Supplementary Education: Evidence From CIEFR-HS 2017. J. Educ. Stud.; 2019; 15, pp. 68-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2019.06.009]
68. Chiu, C.Y.; Lau, E.Y.H. Extracurricular participation and young children’s outcomes in Hong Kong: Maternal involvement as a moderator. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.; 2018; 88, pp. 476-485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.051]
69. Fredricks, J.A.; Eccles, J.S. Developmental benefits of extracurricular involvement: Do peer characteristics mediate the link between activities and youth outcomes?. J. Youth Adolesc.; 2005; 34, pp. 507-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8933-5]
70. Simpkins, S.D.; Vest, A.E.; Delgado, M.Y.; Price, C.D. Do school friends participate in similar extracurricular activities? Examining the moderating role of race/ethnicity and age. J. Leis. Res.; 2012; 44, pp. 332-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2012.11950268]
71. Larson, R.W.; Hansen, D.M.; Moneta, G. Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Dev. Psychol.; 2006; 42, pp. 849-863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953691]
72. Petousi, V.; Sifaki, E. Contextualizing harm in the framework of research misconduct. Findings from discourse analysis of scientific publications. Int. J. Sust. Dev.; 2020; 23, pp. 149-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2020.115206]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.