Determining Tendency Levels and Opinions of Secondary School 12th Grade Students on Private Tutoring

Year 2023, , 305 - 327, 30.04.2023

Azmi Turkan , Nadir Çeliköz

https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1178067

Abstract

The purpose of this study is, based on various variables, to determine differentiation in private tutoring tendencies of 12th grade students and their opinions about private tutoring. Mixed method sequential explanatory design was used in this study because both quantitative and qualitative methods were included. Collecting qualitative data depends on quantitative data. Thus, explanatory sequential design, one of the mixed methods, was used. The quantitative study group consists of 717 students in 12th grade secondary school studying in different schools types in İstanbul. Quantitative data were collected through stratified sampling method. The qualitative study group consists of 11 students selected according to quantitative data. The maximum variation sampling method was preferred for collecting qualitative data. The “Private Tutoring Tendency Scale” was used for collecting quantitative data; the semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers was used for collecting qualitative data. The SPSS 22.0 software was used in analyzing the quantitative data. Microsoft Excel and Nvivo 8 software were used for qualitative data analysis. The content analysis was preferred for conducting qualitative data analysis. According to the study results, it was observed that; there is significant difference in private tutoring tendency levels of the participants with respect to the gender and private tutoring experience variables. When qualitative findings are considered, it is evident that opinions of the participants are mainly gathered under the titles; reason for private tutoring tendency, general opinions on private tutoring and methodological opinions on private tutoring.

Keywords

private tutoring, shadow education, additional learning, private tutoring tendency.

Ortaöğretim 12. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Özel Derse Yönelik Eğilim Düzeyleri ve Görüşlerinin Tespit Edilmesi

Abstract

References

• Addi-Raccah, A & Dana, O. (2015). Private tutoring intensity in schools: a comparison between high and low socio-economic schools. International Studies in Sociology of Education. 25(3): 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2015.1069719
• Altinyelken, H. K. (2013). The Demand for Private Tutoring in Turkey. In Private Tutoring Across the Mediterranean (pp. 187-204). SensePublishers.
• Aslam, M. & Atherton, P. 2(012). The ‘shadow’ education sector in India and Pakistan: The determinants, benefits and equity effects of private tutoring, Education Support Programme Working Paper Series 38. Budapest: Open Society Foundations.
• Bacanlı, H. & Dombaycı, M. A. (2013). Kapatılma veya dönüştürülme ayrımında dershaneler. Ankara: Ankara Sisyasal ve Ekonamik Araştırmalar Mekezi (ASEM).
• Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & 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), 1-17.
• Barrow, D. A., & Lochan, S. N. (2012). Supplementary tutoring in Trinidad and Tobago: Some implications for policy making. International Review of Education, 58(3), 405-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-012-9288-2
• Baştürk, S., & Doğan, S. (2010). Lise öğretmenlerinin özel dershaneler hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi, Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi. 7(2)
• Biber, A. Ç., Tuna, A., Polat, A. C., Altunok, F., & Küçükoğlu, U. (2017). Ortaokullarda uygulanan destekleme ve yetiştirme kurslarına dair öğrenci görüşleri. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 103-119.
• Bray, M. (2007). The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring And Its Implications For Planners. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). 2th Edition.
• Bray, M. (2010). Blurring boundaries: The growing visibility, evolving forms and complex implications of private supplementary tutoring. Orbis scholae, 4(2), 61-73.
• Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of education review, 22(6), 611-620.
• Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia (No. 9). Asian Development Bank.
• Bray, M., Kwo, O., & Jokic, B. (2015). Researching private supplementary tutoring. Methodological lessons from diverse cultures. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
• Bray, M., Mazawi, A. E., & Sultana, R. G. (Eds.). (2013). Private tutoring across the Mediterranean. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.10.002
• Bray, T. M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. No.61. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
• Bray, T. M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring?. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
• Bray, T. M., & Kwo, O. W. Y. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for supplementary education in Asia. UNESCO and Comparative Education Research Centre, HKU.
• Buchmann, C. (1999). The state and schooling in Kenya: Historical developments and current challenges. Africa Today, 95-117.
• Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. International Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.
• Creswell, J. W. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları (Çev Edt: Dede, Y. ve Demir, SB), Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Damayanthi. B.W.R. (2018). Academic Performance of Students: the Effect of Class Room Level Factors and Private Tutoring. American Journal of Educational Research. 6(3) 262-269. doi: 10.12691/education-6-3-13.
• Davis, J. (2013). Educational Legitimation and Parental Aspiration: Private tutoring in Perth, Western Australia: presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The University of Western Australia Graduate School of Education.
• de Castro, B. V., & de Guzman, A. B. (2010). Push and pull factors affecting Filipino students' Shadow Education (SE) participation. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(1). 43–66.
• Demirer, D. K. (2011). Eğitimde Paradigma Değişimi: Gölge Eğitim. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Duman, G. K. (2008). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin durumluk sürekli kaygı düzeyleri ile sınav kaygısı düzeyleri ve ana-baba tutumları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, DEÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Elbadawy A., Assaad, R., Ahlburg D. & Levison, D. (2007). Private and group tutoring in Egypt: Where is the gender inequality. Çalışma Kağıdı. https://erf.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/0429_assaad_badadwy.pdf
• Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri [Phenomenology. Qualitative research designs in education]. Edt. Saban, A. ve A. Ersoy. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık: 50-109
• Gölpek, F. (2011). Türkiye’de adalet ilkesi bakımından yükseköğretimde finansman politikası: Kim faydalanıyor? Kim ödüyor?. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 11(3): 149-176.
• Greene, J. C., Kreider, H., & Mayer, E. (2005). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. In B. Somekh ve C. Lewin (Eds.). Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 275-282). London: Sage.
• Guill, K., & Bos, W. (2014). Effectiveness of private tutoring in mathematics with regard to subjective and objective indicators of academic achievement. Evidence from a German secondary school sample. Journal for educational research online, 6(1), 34-67. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8840
• Gündüz, M. (2003). Postmodern Toplumda Yeni Bir Ö¤ renme Yöntemi: Özel Ders Verme (Tutoring). Keith Topping’ten Çeviri, Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, C, 36, 1-2.
• Gündüz, M. (2006). Okulsuz Eğitim Uygulamasına İlişkin Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Tutoring Örneği’nin Eleştirisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 172.
• Güvendir, M. A. (2014). Öğrenci başarılarının belirlenmesi sınavında öğrenci ve okul özelliklerinin Türkçe başarısı ile ilişkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172).
• Hong, S. C., & Park, Y. S. (2012). An analysis of the relationship between self-study, private tutoring, and self-efficacy on self-regulated learning. KEDI journal of educational policy, 9(1).
• Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: How prevalent and effective is it?. London Review of Education, 2(2), 109-122.
• Ireson, J. (2011). One-to-One Tuition: An Ideal Context for Learning?. Institute of Education-London. 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK.
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Eğitim araştırmaları: nicel, nitel ve karma yaklaşımlar. Çev. Ed. SB DEMİR) Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
• Kenayathulla, H. B. (2013). Household expenditures on private tutoring: Emerging evidence from Malaysia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 629-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9289-2
• Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2001). Demand for education and developmental state: Private tutoring in South Korea. Available at SSRN 268284. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=268284
• Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic development and cultural change, 58(2), 259-296.
• Kösterelioğlu, İ. (2015). Private Courses in Education or Education in Private Courses?. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1).
• Kuan, P. Y. (2011). Effects of cram schooling on mathematics performance: Evidence from junior high students in Taiwan. Comparative education review, 55(3), 342-368.
• Lee, J. Y. (2013). Private tutoring and its impact on students' academic achievement, formal schooling, and educational inequality in Korea (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University).
• Mischo, C., & Haag, L. (2002). Expansion and effectiveness of private tutoring. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(3), 263.
• Nagac, K., & Guc, Y. (2015). An analysis of education policy towards private tutoring centers in Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics & Business Research, 5(3), 161-170.
• Rodzalan, S. A., & Mohamed Saat, M. (2015). The perception of critical thinking and problem solving skill among Malaysian undergraduate students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 725-732. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.425
• Rutz, H. J., & Balkan, E. M. (2016). Sınıfın Yeniden Üretimi: Eğitim, Neoliberalizm ve İstanbul'da Yeni Orta Sınıfın Yükselişi, İstanbul: H2O Yayınevi.
• Sağlam, A. Ç., & Büyükuysal, E. (2013). Eğitim fakültesi son sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme düzeyleri ve buna yönelik engellere ilişkin görüşleri. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 258-278.
• Saracaloğlu, A., Gündoğdu, K., Baydilek, N. B., & Sanem, U. Ç. A. (2014). Türkiye, Güney Kore ve Japonya’da dershanecilik sisteminin incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, (51), 417-433.
• Silova, I. (Ed.). (2009). Private supplementary tutoring in Central Asia: New opportunities and burdens. International Institute for Educational Planning.
• Silova, I., & Bray, M. (2006). The hidden marketplace: Private tutoring in former socialist countries. Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring, 71-98.
• Smyth, E. (2008). The more, the better? Intensity of involvement in private tuition and examination performance. Educational research and evaluation, 14(5), 465-476.
• Song, K. O., Park, H. J., & Sang, K. A. (2013). A cross-national analysis of the student-and school-level factors affecting the demand for private tutoring. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-012-9236-7
• Suante, K. T. T. (2017). What are they buying in private tuition? Micro-level perspective on the practice of private tuition by Grade 9 students in Kale township, Myanmar. European Journal of Education Studies.3(8) :73-94 http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.865
• Tansel, A., & Bircan B., F. (2004). Private tutoring expenditures in Turkey.. Discussion paper 2004/13, Turkish Economic Association.
• Tansel, A., & Bircan B., F. (2005). Effect of private tutoring on university entrance examination performance in Turkey., Economic Research Forum WP No. 0407, Cairo, Egyptand IZA Discussion Paper No. 1609, Bonn, Germany.
• Tansel, A., & Bircan, B., F. (2006). Demand for education in Turkey: A tobit analysis of private tutoring expenditures. Economics of education review, 25(3), 303-313..
• Tansel, B. & Bircan, B., F. 2008. [23.06.2018]. Private Supplementary Tutoring in Turkey Recent Evidence on its Recent Aspects. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122804
• Türk Eğitim Derneği (TED). (2010). Ortaöğretim ve yükseköğretime geçiş sistemi. Türk Eğitim Derneği.
• Türkan, A., & Çeliköz, N. (2016). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerine Yönelik Özel Ders Eğilim Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD), 3(2), 398-410. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.421220
• Vella, A., & Theuma, M. (2008). Various aspects behind private tuition: A study among Form 4 secondary schools (Bachelor's thesis, University of Malta).
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (10. Baskı) Ankara: Seçkin Yay.
• Yıldızhan, H.Y. (2015). Okul Dışı Eğitim İhtiyaçlarının Belirlenmesi ve Toplumun Beklentisi (Ankara İli Örneği). Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kütahya.
• Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının Türk eğitim sisteminin sorunlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Uluslararası insan bilimleri dergisi, 8(1), 942-973.