Next Article in Journal
Framework for Incorporating Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Elements in Climate Information Services (CIS)
Next Article in Special Issue
A Social Media Analysis of the Experiences of Chinese Early Childhood Educators and Families with Young Children during COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
Raman Spectroscopy Application in Food Waste Analysis: A Step towards a Portable Food Quality-Warning System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Development Mechanism in Rural Kindergartens: The Relationships among Enabling Organizational Structure, Kindergarten Directors’ Leadership and Early Childhood Teachers’ Well-Being
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010181
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards the Sustainable Development of Young Children: Impact of After-School Tutoring on Chinese Preschoolers’ Social Behavior

by
Jin Shi
1,
Yaping Yue
2,*,
Weiping Zhao
1 and
Qiaoqiao Huang
1
1
College of Preschool Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
2
Henan Preschool Education Research Center, Faculty of Education, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 181; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010181
Submission received: 20 November 2022 / Revised: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Early Childhood Education for the Sustainable Development of a Post-pandemic World)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to examine whether participation in more types of after-school tutoring for 3- to 6-year-old preschool children is more beneficial to their social behavior. The study was based on survey data collected from 823 children aged between 3 and 6 years in Beijing City, the Guangdong Province and the Jiangxi province, China. Binary logistic regression and hierarchical multiple regression results revealed that: (1) gender, age, and family socioeconomic status were important factors that affected whether preschool children participated in after-school tutoring; (2) in terms of the types of after-school tutoring, participation in the arts and health-related activities was beneficial to the development of children’s social skills, participation in arts and science ameliorated children’s problem behavior, but participation in arts, science, and health-related activities simultaneously posed a negative impact on children’s problem behavior; (3) in terms of the breadth of participation, children’s social skills were weakly strengthened if the participation breadth is greater, but this, however, did not reduce problem behavior; (4) parental involvement and individual factors were important in determining children’s social behavior. Based on the findings of this study, we suggest that parents should carefully consider the impact of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social behavior and choose after-school tutoring appropriately.

1. Introduction

As the marketization of education continues, after-school tutoring for preschool children is an industry which is growing rapidly worldwide. An Australian survey found that, of the survey sample, about 80% of preschool children had participated in after-school tutoring [1]. A longitudinal study in the United States showed that 78.4% of children of those studied had participated in one or more types of after-school tutoring during kindergarten and first grade, among which sports were the most popular, while music and arts were the least popular [2]. The results of studies in regions such as South Korea, Singapore, Canada, and Hong Kong, China were all similar [3,4,5,6]. The “Annual Report on Chinese Children’s Development (2020)” pointed out that nearly 90% of preschool children in China’s urban areas had participated in after-school tutoring. Regarding the number of activities, 39.5%, 47.4%, and 13.1% of the children respectively chose to participate in 1 to 2 types, 3 to 5 types, and 6 or more types of after-school tutoring of arts, music, sports, intelligence, literacy, etc. [7] To give children an early advantage over their peers, participation in after-school tutoring has become a common choice among parents of preschool children around the world.
Unlike the expectations for school-age children, improving cognitive skills is not the sole reason parents choose after-school tutoring for preschoolers. Parents are more interested in developing children’s social behavior. Social behavior includes a variety of behaviors that allow children to adapt to society in their environment. It can be divided into positive behavior and negative behavior. An increase in children‘s positive behavior does not necessarily mean a decrease in negative behavior [8]. Merrell believes that children‘s social behavior has a highly complex multi-dimensional structure, which can be defined according to two dimensions: social skills and problem behavior [9]. The development of children’s social behavior forms an important beginning to individual socialization and plays an extremely important role in laying the foundation for children’s current and future development. Nevertheless, previous studies have focused almost exclusively on the effects of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s academic achievement [10,11] and have largely neglected the important developmental indicator of children’s social behavior. After-school tutoring, as a form of social education outside of schooling, may impact preschool children’s social behavior. However, there is a lack of research into whether after-school tutoring can promote the development of preschool children’s social behavior, especially empirical research based on extensive data used to test this question. Accordingly, this study investigates whether after-school tutoring for preschool children affects their social behavior. The findings can provide practical guidelines for the introduction of national policies related to after-school tutoring for preschoolers, empirical references for the government to govern the preschool after-school tutoring market, and scientific guidance for parents to choose preschool after-school tutoring rationally.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Types and Effects of After-School Tutoring

In the 1980s, China’s “out-of-school education” was carried out mainly by government or social organizations. With the development of a socialist market economy, after-school tutoring gradually developed, expanded, and received names such as extracurricular tutoring, educational tutoring, and out-of-school tutoring [12,13,14,15]. Although the expressions were different from “shadow education”, the considerations were basically identical. Though tutoring occurred outside of mainstream schools, changes to their ownership, scale, and curriculum always followed the changes in mainstream education, with the purpose of improving children’s learning performance in mainstream schools [16,17]. China’s “Double Reduction Plan” divided after-school tutoring into “disciplinary training” and “non-disciplinary training”, emphasizing the classification of non-disciplinary training. Chinese scholars categorized after-school tutoring into either the academic type or the talent and art training type [18]. Hong Kong scholars also divided non-disciplinary after-school tutoring into sports-type activities (i.e., high-intensity activities, such as playing basketball and running) and sedentary activities (i.e., low-intensity activities, such as art, music, calligraphy, reading, etc.) [19]; Darling et al. divided school-based after-school tutoring into sports and non-sport activities [20]; and some scholars divided art and sports activities into painting, music, sports, etc. [21] In the studies on after-school tutoring, some researchers have focused on the relationships between different types of after-school tutoring and child development. Research has showed that participation in sports is associated with the non-cognitive abilities of children and adolescents [22]. Participation in dancing and music training led to an increase in children’s math and reading grades [23]. Another study showed that participation in arts activities did not apparently enhance children’s academic achievement in math or language [24]; based on the PISA 2015 from Hong Kong, scholars used the Bernoulli model, the HLM model, and Propensity Score Matching to estimate the influencing factors and effects of students’ participation in on-campus and after-school tutoring. The results showed that participation in after-school tutoring in science and reading had no impact on students’ academic achievement [25], while participants in non-sport activities had better academic performance, as they had more positive attitudes toward school and higher academic aspirations [20]. The reason for these results was that after-school tutoring mainly taught students to rely on the initiative of others rather than their own initiative [26], and, possibly due to being affected by different teaching methods, students could not transfer their learning achievements from after-school tutoring to the mainstream classroom [27].

2.2. Relationship between After-School Tutoring and Children’s Social Behavior

Social behavior greatly determines the quality of individual social relationships, career success, and satisfaction in social life [28]. Early social behavioral development forms an important beginning to children’s socialization and plays an important role in laying a foundation for children’s lifelong development [29,30]. Most studies verified that after-school tutoring, especially arts and sports training, could promote the development of children’s social behavior to some extent. For example, participation in after-school tutoring could promote peer interaction, prosocial behavior, and friendships [31]. When strongly supported by parents, participation in after-school sports tutoring was associated with more active peer interaction [32]. Sports activities helped children develop interpersonal skills through cooperation with others [33]. Participation in after-school arts tutoring promoted children’s social interaction, social cooperation, independent task completion ability, and other aspects of development [34]. Participation in after-school tutoring promoted social ability and reduced externalized behavioral problems [35]. After-school tutoring had the potential to reduce the levels of negative emotions in adolescence, such as depression and anxiety [36], while reducing aggressive and antisocial behavior [37]. Scholars believe that after-school arts tutoring is conducive to improving children’s mental health and forming harmonious interpersonal relationships [38]. The number of scenarios or types of after-school tutoring, i.e., the breadth, was associated with personal development most closely. According to some studies, in middle school and high school, the breadth of children’s participation in after-school tutoring conformed to linear or conic trends, which increased slightly at the beginning and dropped afterwards [39,40,41]. More positive interpersonal relationships and peer interactions in children were associated with the breadth of their participation in after-school tutoring [42]. After-school tutoring for preschool children was more likely to involve team cooperation and interaction, which provided more opportunities for developing team cooperation [43]. Oriented by larger structures, challenges, and goals, these activities were more suitable for experiencing team cooperation [44]. Some studies had different findings, such as that after-school tutoring affected children’s social emotions negatively [45]. There might be inharmonious social interactions during after-school tutoring, which were negatively correlated with students’ subsequent adaptability [46,47,48]. Participation in after-school sports tutoring led to low performance rates in prosocial behavior, showing negative peer motivation and inappropriate aggressive behavior [49]. Another study pointed out that although after-school tutoring could develop children’s social behavior, it was difficult to verify the results, as the quantity and quality of existing after-school tutoring were not taken into consideration [50].

2.3. Relationship between After-School Tutoring for Preschool Children and Children’s Social Behavior

After-school tutoring for preschool children refers to paid educational services outside of kindergarten, such as interest classes and special classes, for 3- to 6-year-old children [51]. According to some studies, the purpose of preschool children participating in after-school tutoring is to cultivate children’s personality and promote social development, rather than merely focusing on the improvement of academic performance [52]. The results of studies into whether after-school tutoring promoted preschool children’s social behavior were inconsistent. Some scholars have found that children who actively participated and enjoyed after-school tutoring for a long time could better adapt to the society. In terms of the types of training, studies have shown that after-school tutoring of arts and sports can improve children’s social behavior. For example, participation in music, literacy, and talent training promoted children’s social adaptability [7]. Children who participated in after-school sports tutoring had better social skills than children who had never participated in such tutoring, but no significant gap was found in problem behavior [53]. Participation in after-school tutoring provided preschool children with more opportunities to integrate into peer groups. Therefore, the social abilities of children with bad behavior could be improved through alternative learning [54]. In terms of the breadth of preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring, studies on the participation of children aged 5–6 years in Hong Kong in after-school tutoring showed that greater breadth of participation positively affected their school readiness, anxiety, and withdrawal levels [6]. Children with greater participation breadth carried less internalization problems than children with no participation or lower participation breadth, but there was no difference in externalization problems [55]. Some scholars also found in the sample that about 40% of the children participated in one after-school activity every week, and 28% of the children participated in two after-school activities. Children who participated in two after-school activities had better social behavior than those who participated in one activity or no activities. One possible reason for this was that the two activities allowed children to be more exposed to different learning environments and experiences, as well as to new peers and adults [1].
Another study showed that after-school tutoring had a limited impact on preschool children’s social behavioral development. For example, participation in after-school tutoring for preschool children was not significantly related to their social skills. One possible reason for this was that some types of after-school tutoring, such as playing musical instruments, might be carried out in a very small group or through one-to-one courses. Children might not always have the opportunity to communicate with many peers and practice interpersonal skills [56]. A Hispanic study found that, compared with children who had never participated in after-school tutoring, children participating in after-school tutoring experienced no significant improvement in social behavior, and participation in after-school tutoring was not significantly related to behavioral development [57]. Some scholars have discussed whether 3- to 6-year-old preschool children could obtain sustainable and empowered development from after-school tutoring. Results have showed that children in Junior Class who participated in after-school tutoring experienced better social development after they were promoted to Middle Class but were not significantly affected when they went up to Senior Class from Middle class [58]. A study on children aged between 5 and 6 years in Taiwan found no relationship between preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring and their sociality [59].

2.4. The Present Study

The results of research into the relationship between after-school tutoring and children’s social behavior have varied. Some scholars have concluded that after-school tutoring has a positive impact on children’s social behavior, and some scholars believe that participation in after-school tutoring has a negative or insignificant impact on social behavior. The inconsistent results were probably due to different sample selections and children’s development levels and might also be related to the research methods and tools used by the researchers. In addition, one of the reasons for the inconsistent results was that scholars did not have the same criteria for the classification of tutoring types, breadth, and family socioeconomic status. The relevant literature showed that scholars focused more on certain social skills or social behaviors of children but had not clarified the universality and comprehensiveness of social behavior. There were relatively few studies on the impact of after-school tutoring on all aspects of preschool children’s social behavior. Studies mainly focused on the size, content, class hours, participation frequency of different types, etc. There have been only a few in-depth studies on the breadth and types of after-school tutoring that preschool children participated in, and few studies integrated social skills and problem behavior to study the relationship between social behavior and after-school training. In this study, a comprehensive investigation was carried out on preschool children’s social behavior and after-school tutoring, with the aim of attempting to explore the relationship between after-school tutoring and preschool children’s social behavior. We mainly analyzed the impact of children’s participation breadth and type on their social behavior, in order to help parents dialectically consider the impact of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social behavior, based on empirical research, and rationally select after-school tutoring.
In exploring the relationship between after-school tutoring and children’s social behavior, the primary question posed is regarding what factors affect preschool children’s participation in after-school tutoring. According to the literature, family capital, compensatory factors, and children’s personal interests all affect children’s participation in after-school tutoring. Among them, family background is an important factor that has been widely studied. For example, family income and education level have an impact on participation, and parents with higher socioeconomic status have more positive attitudes towards their children’s participation in after-school tutoring. [60,61,62]. Bronfenbrenner ‘s Ecosystem Theory (1979) attaches great importance to the role of family in children ‘s development. Based on this, this study proposes Research Hypothesis 1: that children‘s individual and family background have a positive impact on children‘s participation in after-school tutoring.
There are many factors affecting children ‘s social behavior, among which children ‘s gender, age, and parents‘ involvement are important examples [63,64,65,66]. Rubin and Crasnor (1986) put forward the Theory of Information Processing to explain children‘s social behavior. In social interactions, a child will first choose goals, evaluate the task environment, generate and screen behavior strategies to achieve social interaction, show social behavior, and emphasize the role of the child’s own social behavior in social interaction. Some studies believe that after-school tutoring can promote the development of children ‘s social behavior to a certain extent [1,7,53]. Although this promotion effect is limited, if the breadth of participation is reasonably selected, the promotion effect improves [67]. Based on this, this study proposes Research Hypothesis 2: that children’s social behavior is not more benefited by a greater number of training classes (greater breadth); and Research Hypothesis 3: that the effect of after-school tutoring on children ‘s social behavior is limited.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Participants

Based on the purpose and the principle of convenient sampling, we distributed 928 parent questionnaires and informed consent requests in Beijing, the Guangdong Province, and the Jiangxi Province. After eliminating invalid questionnaires, such as short filling time, blank filling, and all or most options being the same, 823 valid questionnaires in total were collected, with a recovery rate of 89%. There were 425 boys (52%) and 398 girls (48%), including 407 children in classrooms of 3- to 4-year-olds (49.5%), 214 children in classrooms of 4- to 5-year-olds (26%) and 202 children in classrooms of 5- to 6-year-olds (24.5%).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales

This study used the “Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales” (PKBS) designed by Merrell [9]. The PKBS has 76 questions, including two major subscales: social skills and problem behavior. The social skills subscale includes three dimensions: cooperation, social interaction, and independence. For example, children’s cooperation ability is tested using 12 statements, such as “taking turns with toys and other objects”; children’s social interaction is tested using 11 statements, such as “inviting other children to play”; children’s independence is tested using 11 statements, such as “working or playing independently”. The problem behavior subscale includes five dimensions: explosive, attention problem, aggressive, social withdrawal, and anxiety. For example, children’s explosive behavior is tested using 11 questions, such as “being easily provoked”; children’s attention problem is tested using 8 statements, such as “having difficulty concentrating”; children’s aggressive behavior is tested using 8 statements, such as “being physically aggressive”; children’s social withdrawal behavior is tested using 7 statements, such as “not responding to affection from others”; children’s anxiety problem is tested using 8 statements, such as “being anxious and tense”. The PKBS are 4-point scales (1 = “Rarely”, 2 = “Sometimes”, 3 = “Often”, 4 = “Always”). Since the problem behaviors are rated reversely, the score will be reversed when processing data, i.e., higher scores indicate lower levels of problem behavior. The PKBS were rated by parents to obtain information relating to children’s social behavior. The reliability and validity of the PKBS have been tested. The Cronbach’s coefficients of each dimension of social skills were 0.93, 0.90, and 0.91 for cooperation, social interaction, and independence, respectively. The Cronbach’s coefficients of each dimension of problem behavior were 0.88, 0.87, 0.91, 0.90, and 0.83 for explosive, attention problem, aggressive, social withdrawal, and anxiety behavior, respectively. The overall coefficient alpha of the scales was 0.93, and the KMO value was 0.96.

3.2.2. Family Involvement Questionnaire

This study used the family education part of the “Family Involvement Questionnaire” (FIQ), designed by Fantuzzo to investigate family involvement. It investigates parental engagement in family education using 13 statements such as “taking children to cultural places”. The questionnaire uses a 4-point scale (1 = “Rarely”, 2 = “Sometimes”, 3 = “Often”, 4 = “Always”), where higher scores indicate higher levels of parental engagement in family education. In this study, the coefficient alpha of the questionnaire was 0.95, and the KMO value was 0.96.

3.2.3. Questionnaire Investigating Preschool Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring

In this study, the status of children’s participation in after-school tutoring was reported by parents through a questionnaire. The demographic variables in the questionnaire mainly included children’s gender, age, class level, ownership of kindergarten (public or private), home location, parents’ levels of education, parents’ occupations, and family economic status. Three aspects, including occupation, educational background, and income, were used as the evaluation dimensions of family socioeconomic status. In terms of occupational stratification, Li Chunling’s study on occupational stratification was used for reference, and as such occupations were divided into upper, middle, and lower levels, and the highest occupational stratification of one parent was taken as the measurement index of family socioeconomic status. Educational background was measured according to the highest education degree of one parent. The family economic status was divided into three levels: difficult, medium, and rich. The content of after-school tutoring noted mainly involved whether children participated in interest classes, what types of interest classes children participated in, etc. After-school tutoring for preschool children was divided into eight types: musical instruments, dance, art, sports, sentiment, language, knowledge, and thinking training [68]. With reference to the “Guidelines for learning and development for children aged 3 to 6” issued by the Ministry of Education of China and relevant literature on the assignment and division of the breadth of after-school tutoring [69], the breadth was coded into four types: arts (musical instruments, art, dance), health (sports, sentiment), language (language, knowledge) and science (thinking training). In accordance with the suggestion of Bohnert et al., the breadth of after-school tutoring in this study was defined as the number of types of after-school tutoring children participated in [70]. As there were four tutoring types coded, the possible range of the breadth was 0 (i.e., no participation) to 4. Specific variables are detailed in Table 1.

3.3. Statistical Analyses

Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of gender, age, home location, ownership of kindergarten, and family socioeconomic status (SES) on children’s participation in after-school tutoring. Based on the stepwise method of multiple regression, the influencing factors on children’s social behavior were investigated. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of the combination of types and breadth of after-school tutoring on children’s social behavior. In the analysis, demographic variables, including gender, age, home location, parent’s involvement, ownership of kindergarten and SES, were included as covariates in Step 1 of each regression model, and the breadth variable of after-school tutoring was included in Step 2. In addition, in order to evaluate the possible nonlinear impact, the curve (square) of after-school tutoring breadth was added into Step 3 of each regression model. Age, family location, and SES were the three categorized variables, which were set as dummy variables before linear regression. The reference comparison category was the first category, and the curve (square) item was calculated according to standardized scores.

4. Results

4.1. Factors Influencing Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring

Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of children’s participation in after-school tutoring. the obtained logistic model was statistically significant, χ2 = 167.72, p < 0.001, the model fit was good, and the model could correctly classify 68% of the objects. The regression results in Table 2 showed that gender, class level, and family socioeconomic status significantly affect children’s participation in after-school tutoring. Using girls in Senior Class with high SES as a reference group, girls had more opportunities to participate in after-school tutoring; with an increase in class level, especially in Senior Class, children were more likely to participate in after-school tutoring, as children with higher SES had more opportunities to participate in after-school tutoring. The ownership of kindergarten and home location also significantly affected children’s participation in after-school tutoring. Using private kindergartens with rural children in attendance as a reference group, more children in private kindergartens participated in after-school tutoring, urban children had more opportunities to participate in after-school tutoring than rural children, and there was no significant difference between towns and rural areas.

4.2. The Impact of Participation in Different Types of After-School Tutoring on Children’s Social Behavior

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to investigate the impact of participation in different types of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social skills and problem behavior (see Table 3). In this study, many children had participated in one of the types of after-school tutoring and their combinations. It was found that the impact of children participating in two types of after-school tutoring was better than that of not participating or participating in more types [1]. Based on this, through hierarchical multiple regression, the demographic variables were put into Step 1 as control variables, children participating in 1–2 types of after-school tutoring were placed on Step 2, and children participating in 3–4 types of after-school tutoring were placed on Step 3 for analysis. The results showed that participation in a combination of arts and health activities was beneficial to the development of children’s social skills, while participation in a combination of arts and science activities was beneficial to the improvement of children’s problem behavior. However, with increases in the breadth of after-school tutoring, participation in arts, science, and health activities had a negative impact on children’s problem behavior, which was not beneficial to the improvement of children’s problem behavior.

4.3. The Relationship between the Breadth of After-School Tutoring and Children’s Social Behavior

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis results showed that, in terms of social skills, after controlling for gender, class level, home location, ownership of kindergarten, SES, and parental engagement, Table 4 shows that a breadth of after-school tutoring had a significant positive predictive impact on children’s independence. Although a wider breadth of after-school tutoring was conducive to the children’s independence and social skills, the interpretation rate was low, indicating that the impact was very small. In terms of problem behavior, the breadth of after-school tutoring had no significant predictive impact on children’s explosive behavior, attention problems, social withdrawal, anxiety problems, or aggressive behavior. That is to say, the breadth of after-school tutoring did not improve children’s problem behavior but did have a weak impact on children’s social skills.

4.4. Factors Influencing Children’s Social Behavior

The stepwise method of multiple regression was used to investigate the factors that affected children’s social skills and problem behavior (see Table 5). The results showed that, in terms of social skills, parental involvement could significantly and positively predict the development of children’s social skills and could explain 36.8% of the variance in social skills; that is, greater parental involvement in family education posed a more positive impact on children’s social skills. Meanwhile, girls had better social skills than boys, children in the Middle Class had better social skills than children in the Junior Class, and urban children had better social skills than children in rural areas. The participation breadth of after-school tutoring could significantly and positively predict children’s social skills, but could only explain 0.4% of the variance in social skills. In terms of problem behavior, parental involvement could significantly and positively predict children’s problem behavior; that is, greater parental engagement in family activities posed a more positive impact on children’s problem behavior. In terms of gender, girls had fewer problem behaviors than boys.

5. Discussion

5.1. Gender, Age, and Family Socioeconomic Status Are Important Factors That Affect Children’s Participation in After-School Tutoring

After-school tutoring has been carried out for many years, followed by policies issued by governments at all levels and educational administrative departments for burden reduction; but after-school education is still experiencing expansion to ensure greater diversity. Since the “Double Reduction Plan” was released, the heat surrounding after-school tutoring has been slowly cooling down. Some scholars found that after the “Double Reduction Plan” was released, 65.6% of the students did not participate in any after-school tutoring [71]. In this study, the proportion of preschool children who participated in after-school tutoring was 48.8%, slightly smaller than the proportion of children not participating. This was, on the one hand, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused less preschool children in our sample to sign up for classes; on the other hand, this proves the strength of the “Double Reduction Plan”, as its issuance had a significant influence on the standardization of after-school tutoring development and the guidance for parents, allowing for rational selection. In terms of the influencing factors of after-school tutoring, studies have found that older girls with higher family SESs were more likely to participate in after-school tutoring for preschool children. It was verified that girls tended to have more opportunities to participate in after-school tutoring for preschool children [72]. This study found that girls liked after-school tutoring for arts and language more, whilst boys liked after-school tutoring for health and science more, which was consistent with the results of existing studies [73]. To some extent, this reflects the fact that gender stereotypes influence parents’ choice of after-school tutoring for their children; that is, parents tend to cultivate boys’ masculinity and flexible thinking through health and science activities, and girls’ temperament and language expression abilities through artistic and language activities. In terms of age, as children grow, they also experience physical and mental development gradually, while facing more diversified types of after-school tutoring and greater impacts from participation in such training, which was consistent in this study with the results of the existing studies [5]. In terms of family socioeconomic status, children with high family socioeconomic status were more likely to participate in after-school tutoring, which was consistent with the results of existing studies [74]. On the one hand, parents with high family SES could obtain more after-school tutoring resources for preschool children through social relationships and spend more energy on children’s education [75]. On the other hand, participation in after-school tutoring had the characteristics of social stratification. Families with better socioeconomic status paid more attention to children’s education and were more able to invest time, energy, and money in children, so they were more inclined to participate in after-school tutoring.

5.2. Participation in Different Types of After-School Tutoring Has a Limited Role in Promoting Children’s Social Behavior

The existing studies showed that participation in after-school arts tutoring positively affected the formation of children’s social interaction skills, harmonious interpersonal relationships, and social development [34,38,53]. Participation in after-school sports tutoring improved children’s peer interaction and social skills and helped enhance their interpersonal skills regarding cooperation [32,33,53]. This study found that participation in a combination of after-school arts and health tutoring positively affected children’s social skills. Additionally, in this study it was found that participation in a combination of arts and science tutoring ameliorated children’s problem behaviors, the reason for which was that scientific activities focused on “positive emotional experience and exploration spirit” and “finding problems and solutions continuously” [76]. Participation in scientific activities strengthened children’s learning qualities, such as making them more courageous, willing to explore and try, and more able to stay concentrated, and ameliorated problem behaviors including explosive action, attention problems, and withdrawal problems [77]. Artistic activities helped children to reflect reality, express emotions, and cultivate sentiment with the help of art work [78], some of which were beneficial to children’s emotional and behavioral stability. Another study showed that girls who participated in after-school arts tutoring had fewer behavioral problems such as hyperactivity, discipline violation, and aggressiveness, and their psychological behavior was better [79]. This could partly explain why after-school science and arts tutoring was more conducive to the improvement of children’s problem behavior. However, when children participated in after-school art, health, and science tutoring at the same time, this was not conducive to improvements in their problem behavior. Although a combination of art and science activities was conducive to the improvement of children’s problem behavior, some studies have showed that there are some unstable factors in the competitive activities involved in health and sports tutoring, such as aggression, emotional loss, peer conflict, etc., and children with behavioral problems were more likely to choose their own sports activities [80,81]. In addition, “signing up for more classes” suppressed the interest of young children in after-school tutoring, which might lead to a series of problems such as distraction, anxiety, and withdrawal.

5.3. “Signing Up for More Classes” Is Not More Beneficial to Children’s Social Behavior

This study found that although participation in a greater breadth of after-school tutoring slightly improved children’s skills, the improvement was limited; i.e., “signing up for more classes” was not more beneficial to children’s social behavior. Previous studies have found that children who participated in two types of after-school tutoring had better social skills than those participating in one type of training, but those participating in more than two types did not show any improvement in social skills [1]. The assessment of social behavior in this study included social skills and problem behavior. Social skills included acquired socially acceptable behaviors and the skills of children to communicate with others in social situations. Participation in after-school tutoring guaranteed children would have opportunities to interact with different peers, but peer interaction in after-school tutoring was mostly fragmented and shallow; since training was carried out mainly through teaching and narration and there was not much time for peers to communicate deeply, the establishment of peer relationships was not reliable, and the promotion of children’s social skills was limited. In China’s preschool children’s education, it is advocated and encouraged by parents and scholars for children to have good cooperation ability, social interaction ability, and independence; on the contrary, aggressive behavior, destructive behavior, and withdrawal behavior are negatively evaluated and frowned upon. Children’s problem behaviors can cause problems for the children themselves and others. Among after-school tutoring institutions, teachers are inclined to give blurry feedback of children’s problem behavior to parents, as too much or too deep feedback may invoke parents’ strong emotional reactions and affect whether children continue to participate in after-school tutoring. In addition, children’s problem behavior would occur and develop under the influence of tutoring in ability, empathy, and self-control [82]. Taking aggressive behavior as an example, children’s wrong understanding and attribution of situational information and optimistic understanding of the consequences of aggressive behavior will increase the probability of aggressive behavior. Teachers in after-school tutoring institutions often address children’s aggressive behavior immediately through criticism and education, in order to ensure that activities can continue smoothly, and that the interests of children are maximized.

5.4. Parental Involvement and Children’s Individual Factors Are Important in Affecting Children’s Social Behavior

This study found that individual factors such as parental involvement, children’s gender, and age were important factors that affected children’s social behavior. Among them, the prediction potential of parental involvement in family education was the most prominent. Children’s social skills and problem behaviors were benefited more when parents were more engaged in family activities. One study found that parental involvement was a key factor affecting children’s social behavior, and there was a positive relationship between parental involvement and preschool children’s social ability [83]. Higher quality of parental involvement improved children’s social development and reduced problem behavior [66,84]. Regarding the methods of participation, by participating in a democratic way, parents could help enhance children’s social abilities and reduce problem behaviors [85]. If the methods of participation used were inappropriate, such as adopting an autocratic method, it was easier to provoke children’s aggressive behavior [86,87]. Parental involvement was a necessity in the process of improving children’s social skills and alleviating problem behavior.
In terms of gender, this study found that girls had better social skills and fewer problem behaviors than boys, which was consistent with the results of some existing studies [88,89,90]. Social psychologists have pointed out that in social culture, girls are expected to demonstrate more prosocial behavior than boys, such as better cooperation, friendship, compassion, helpfulness, etc., and fewer problem behaviors [91]. In life, gender stereotyping still exists. When boys showed aggressive behavior, parents tended to treat them with a relatively tolerant attitude; some parents even encouraged their children to fight back against other people’s aggression, believing that this was just what a “boy” should do. Meanwhile, girls’ negative behavior was more severely criticized and prohibited. Adults would exert more pressure on girls to care for others, resulting in girls being more friendly, emotional, and compassionate than boys [92], while boys were stronger, more independent, and more competitive [93]. In terms of age, children’s social behavior increased as children grew older. Previous studies have also found that older children were more able to help others in a more appropriate ways [94], and they had more skills and knowledge than younger children, so they could help others more [95].

6. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

As far as we know, there are few special studies on the relationship between after-school tutoring on preschoolers and their social behavior. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: (1) gender, age, and family socioeconomic status were important factors that affected whether preschool children participated in after-school tutoring; (2) participation in different types of after-school tutoring has a limited role in promoting children’s social behavior; (3) participating in after-school tutoring more did not guarantee that preschool children’s social behavior would be improved; (4) parental involvement, gender, and age were important in affecting children’s social behavior. The results of this study can provide reference for parents’ scientific education.
Based on the results, it is recommended that: (1) parents develop correct views regarding children and education, and dialectically consider the impact of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social behavior; (2) appropriate selection of after-school tutoring be adopted to promote the healthy development of children; (3) stimulation of high-quality parental engagement be adopted to effectively improve children’s social behavior.
The study has the following limitations: (1) our sample was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, as when sampling in 2021, only three provinces and cities were chosen for investigation based on the principle of convenient sampling, which resulted in the small sample size and limited representativeness; (2) in terms of survey time, as the situations of children’s participation in after-school tutoring before and after the “Double Reduction Plan” were not compared in this study, the comprehensive effects of the “Double Reduction Plan” cannot be elaborated on here; (3) the intensity and duration of children’s participation in after-school tutoring were not included. Although the study involved the breadth of participation, it did not study the breadth trajectory of children’s participation. In order to provide more references for the standardized development of after-school tutoring institutions and scientific parenting, research will be adjusted in the future to allow for a longitudinal study to be conducted, in which the impact of the breadth and intensity of participation in after-school tutoring on preschool children’s development will be deeply explored, and the effect of the “Double Reduction Plan” will be further verified.

Author Contributions

Designing and collecting questionnaires, and writing-original draft preparation, J.S.; funding the project and writing-original draft preparation, Y.Y.; analyzing data, W.Z.; revising and editing the paper, Q.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research & Practice Project on Pedagogical Reform of Higher Education in Henan Province (2021SJGLX083).

Institutional Review Board Statement

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 Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the preschoolers and their parents. This project is supported by the Sunglory Educational Institute. The authors thank all participants for their cooperation in the data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

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.

References

  1. Simoncini, K.; Caltabiono, N. Young school-aged children’s behavior and their participation in extracurricular activities. Aust. J. Early Child. 2012, 37, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dumais, S.A. Elementary school students’ extracurricular activities: The effects of participation on achievement and teachers’ evaluations. Sociol. Spectrum 2006, 26, 117–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Woo, H.; Hodges, N.N. Education fever: Exploring private education consumption motivations among Korean parents of preschool children. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2015, 44, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tan, C. Private supplementary tutoring and parentocracy in Singapore. Interchange 2017, 48, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aumetre, F.; Poulin, F. Trajectories of breadth of participation in organized activity during childhood. Soc. Dev. 2016, 25, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dong, J.H.; Lu, T.; Guo, L.; Zhu, Q.Z.; Chen, Y.B.; Wei, S.J. Analysis of social adaptability and influencing factors of children in Guangzhou extra-curricular activities. Chin. J. Sch. Health 2014, 35, 765–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pang, L.J.; Chen, Q.; Jiang, Y. Studies on relationship within and between dimensions of children’s social behavior. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2006, 22, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Merrell, K.W. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Test Manual; Clinical Psychology Publishing Company: Brandon, MB, Canada, 1994; pp. 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ren, L.; Kutaka, T.S.; Chernyavskiy, P.; Fan, J.; Li, X. The linear and nonlinear effects of organized extracurricular activities on Chinese Preschoolers’development. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 60, 101845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Allen, E.C.; Black, A.L.; Lin, T.J.; Purtell, K.M.; Justice, L.M. Extracurricular activity participation in kindergarten: Who participates, and why does it matter? J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2022, 83, 101455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Peng, P. Shadow education: Foreign research on private tutoring and its inspiration. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2008, 30, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xue, H.P.; Ding, X.H. A study on additional instruction for students in cities and towns in China. Educ. Res. 2009, 30, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lei, W.P. Expenditure on private tutoring for Senior Secondary students: Determinants and policy implications. Educ. Econ. 2005, 1, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gong, Y.X.; Chen, T.; Xue, H.P. Love boundary: Is family education anxiety increasing extra-curricular tutoring input? Res. Educ. Dev. 2021, 41, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lou, S.H. The dilemma of “Shadow education” and the choice of basic education policy. Res. Educ. Dev. 2013, 33, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stevenson, D.L.; Baker, D.P. Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. Am. J. Sociol. 1992, 97, 1639–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xue, H.P.; Zuo, S.H.Y. Current situation and changing trends of extra-curricular tuition participation of basic education students in China. Educ. Sci. Res. 2021, 32, 16–25, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheung, P.P. Children’s after-school physical activity participation in Hong Kong: Does family socioeconomic status matter? Health Educ. J. 2017, 76, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Darling, N.; Caldwell, L.L.; Smith, R. Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. J. Leisure Res. 2005, 37, 51–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, C.H.Y. A Study on the Current Situation of Parents’ Choice of Extracurricular Activities for Primary School Students. Master Thesis, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Marsh, H.W. Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? J. Educ. Psychol. 1992, 84, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Broh, B.A. Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why? Sociol. Educ. 2002, 75, 69–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Costa-Giomi, E. Effects of three years of piano instruction on children’s academic achievement, school performance and self-esteem. Psychol. Music 2004, 32, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, J.L.; Pan, D.D. The determinants and impacts of private tutoring in and out of school in Hong Kong. Educ. Econ. 2020, 36, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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, 25–42. [Google Scholar]
  27. 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, 34–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, C.H.M. Development of social skills in children aged 3–9 years. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 1994, 10, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fisher, L.; Spencer, F. Children’s Social Behavior for Learning (SBL): Reported and observed social behavior in contexts of school and home. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2015, 18, 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, M.F. Development and education of preschooler’s prosocial behavior. J. Shandong Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2000, 47, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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. Leisure Res. 2012, 44, 332–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anderssen, N.; Wold, B. Parental and peer influences on leisure-time physical activity in young adolescents. Res. Q. Exercise Sport 1992, 63, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gilman, R.; Meyers, J.; Perez, L. Structured extracurricular activities among adolescents: Findings and implications for school psychologists. Psychol. Sch. 2004, 41, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Trusty, J.; Oliva, G.M. The effect of arts and music education on students’ self-concept. Update: Appl. Res. Music Educ. 1994, 13, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mahoney, J.L.; Stattin, H. Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. J. Adolesc. 2000, 23, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Mahoney, J.L.; Schweder, A.E.; Stattin, H. Structured after-school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with detached relations to their parents. J. Community Psychol. 2002, 30, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jones, M.B.; Offord, D.R. Reduction of antisocial behavior in poor children by non-school skill-development. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1989, 30, 737–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yan, T. Research on art education in quality education in primary schools. Success Educ. Edit. 2013, 114–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. 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, 2172–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Denault, A.S.; Poulin, F. Intensity and breadth of participation in organized activities during the adolescent years: Multiple associations with youth outcomes. J. Youth Adolesc. 2009, 38, 1199–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Pedersen, S. Urban adolescents’ out-of-school activity profiles: Associations with youth, family, and school transition characteristics. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2005, 9, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rose-Krasnor, L.; Busseri, M.A.; Willoughby, T.; Chalmers, H. Breadth and intensity of youth activity involvement as contexts for positive development. J. Youth Adolesc. 2006, 35, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rogoff, B.; Baker-Sennett, J.; Lacasa, P.; Goldsmith, D. Development through participation in sociocultural activity. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Develop. 1995, 67, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Larson, R. Toward a psychology of positive youth development. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 170–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Galambos, N.L.; Garbarino, J. Adjustment of unsupervised children in rural settings. J. Genet. Psychol. 1985, 146, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vandell, D.L.; Shumow, L. After-school child care programs. Future Child 1999, 9, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pierce, K.M.; Hamn, J.V.; Vandell, D.L. Experiences in after-school programs and children’s adjustment in first-grade classrooms. Child Dev. 1999, 70, 756–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rosenthal, R.; Vandell, D.L. Quality of care at school aged child-care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Dev. 1996, 67, 2434–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Brustad, R.J.; Babkes, M.L.; Smith, A.L. Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. Handb. Sport Psychol. 2001, 2, 604–635. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wright, R.; John, L.; Alaggia, R.; Duku, E.K.; Morton, T. Do community arts programs promote positive youth development. Crit. Soc. Work 2008, 9. Available online: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/95333 (accessed on 22 August 2022). [CrossRef]
  51. 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, 19, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shahril, B.H.M.; Choo, M.W.S.; Mohummad, F.A.G. Improving the quality of education in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. Dimens. Educ. 2010, 245–246. Available online: https://xs.studiodahu.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Improving+the+quality+of+education+in+Malaysia%3A+Issues+and+challenges.+&btnG= (accessed on 22 August 2022).
  53. Howie, L.D.; Lukacs, S.L.; Pastor, P.N.; Reuben, C.A.; Mendola, P. Participation in activities outside of school hours in relation to problem behavior and social skills in middle childhood. J. Sch. Health 2010, 80, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; General Learning Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 225–456. [Google Scholar]
  55. Aum’etre, F.; Poulin, F. Academic and behavioral outcomes associated with organized activity participation trajectories during childhood. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2018, 54, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ren, L.; Zhang, X. Antecedents and consequences of organized extracurricular activities among Chinese preschoolers in Hong Kong. Learn. Instr. 2020, 65, 101267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. 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, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shi, J.; Xue, H.P.; Fang, C.H. Can advance “snatching” continue to empower preschool children?—A follow-up survey of the influence of early education classes on children’s learning and development. Forum Contemp. Educ. 2022, 21, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, Y.Y. The Investigation of the Effects of Participation in Extracurricular Activities on Preschool Children School Engagement in Taiwan Context. Doctoral Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zinnecker, J. Growing Up in Europe: Contemporary Horizons in Childhood and Youth Studies. In The Cultural Modernisation Of Childhood; Chisholm, L., Büchner, P., Krüger, H.H., Eds.; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1995; pp. 85–94. [Google Scholar]
  61. McNeal, R.B., Jr. Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociol. Educ. 1995, 68, 62–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jelani, J.; Tan, A.K. Determinants of participation and expenditure patterns of private tuition received by primary school students in Penang, Malaysia: An exploratory study. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2012, 32, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bierman, K.L.; Domitrovich, C.E.; Nix, R.L.; Gest, S.D.; Welsh, J.A.; Greenberg, M.T.; Gill, S. Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The head start REDI program. Child Dev. 2008, 79, 1802–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Staub, E. A conception of the determinants and development of altruism arid aggression: Motives, the self, and the environment. Reach. Out Caring Altruism Prosocial Behav. 1994, 11–39. Available online: https://xs.studiodahu.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+conception+of+the+determinants+and+development+of+altruism+arid+aggression%3A+Motives%2C+the+self%2C+and+the+environmen&btnG= (accessed on 22 August 2022).
  65. Crick, N.R.; Casas, J.F.; Mosher, M. Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Dev. Psychol. 1997, 33, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hill, N.E.; Taylor, L.C. Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 13, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fredricks, J.A.; Eccles, J.S. Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Huang, B.S. Investigation and Research on the Status Quo of Parents’ Demand for Children’s Interest Classes. Master’s Thesis, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  69. 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 Chines preschoolers. J. Sch. Psychol. 2021, 86, 100–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bohnert, A.; Fredricks, J.; Randall, E. Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Rev. Educ. Res. 2010, 80, 576–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dong, S.H.Z.; Gong, Y.F.; Zhang, L.; Pan, Q.; Huang, H. Extracurricular activities governance under “Double Reduction”: Effectiveness, problems and countermeasures. J. Shanghai Educ. Res. 2022, 42, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fredricks, J.A.; Eccles, J.S. Extracurricular involvement and adolescent adjustment: Impact of duration, number of activities, and breadth of participation. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2006, 10, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Eccles, J.S.; Barber, B.L. Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? J. Adolesc. Res. 1999, 14, 10–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lin, X.S. “Purchasing hope”: The consumption of children education in urban China. Sociol. Stud. 2018, 33, 163–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Park, H.; Byun, S.Y.; Kim, K.K. Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociol. Educ. 2011, 84, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gong, Q. The practice of kindergarten curriculum that promotes children’s positive emotional experience—Taking the activities in the field of science as an example. Early Educ. 2015, 33, 40–42. Available online: http://www.doc88.com/p-9065244709445.html (accessed on 22 August 2022).
  77. Guo, Y.T. Study on the Learning Quality of Big Class Children in Science Education Activities. Master’s Thesis, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  78. Cui, H.M.; Zhou, J.J. A study on the influential factors of primary and secondary school students participating in out-of-school art training: An empirical analysis based on logistic model. J. Hunan First Norm. Univ. 2021, 21, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  79. Dong, J.H.; Lu, T.; Zhu, Q.Z.H.; Guo, L.; Chen, Y.B.; Wei, S.H.J. Analysis on the current situation and behavior problems of children participating in extra-curricular activities in urban areas of Guangzhou. Chin. J. Sch. Health 2014, 35, 1087–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hansen, D.; Larson, R.; Dworkin, J. What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. J. Res. Adolesc. 2003, 13, 25–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Denault, A.; Poulin, F. Predictors of adolescent participation in organized activities: A five-year longitudinal study. J. Res. Adolesc. 2009, 19, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Murphy, B.; Karbon, M.; Smith, M.; Maszk, P. The relations of children’s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Dev. Psychol. 1996, 32, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fantuzzo, J.; Tighe, E.; Childs, S. Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. J. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 92, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fantuzzo, J.; McWayne, C.; Perry, M.A.; Childs, S. Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 33, 467–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Steinberg, L.; Blatt-Eisengart, I.; Cauffman, E. Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. J. Res. Adolesc. 2006, 16, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Van Aken, C.; Junger, M.; Verhoeven, M.; Van Aken, M.A.G.; Deković, M. The longitudinal relations between parenting and toddlers’ attention problems and aggressive behavior. Infant Behav. Dev. 2008, 31, 432–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dong, H.Q.; Zhang, W.X. The impact of family on bullies and victims. J. Shandong Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2005, 50, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, D.; Cui, L.Y.; Cen, G.Z.H.; Zhou, J.; Chen, X.Y. Peer interaction of children aged 6-8 and its relation to paternal nurturing styles. J. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 27, 803–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tisak, M.S.; Holub, S.C.; Tisak, J. What nice things do boys and girls do? Preschoolers’ perspectives of peers’ behavior at school and at home. Early Educ. Dev. 2007, 18, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, Y.H. A Study on the Relationship between the Preschool Children’s Psychological Health and the Social Behavior and Family Environment. Master’s Thesis, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  91. Shigetomi, C.C.; Hartmann, D.P.; Gelfand, D.M. Sex differences in children’s altruistic behavior and reputations for helpfulness. Dev. Psychol. 1981, 17, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Baillargeon, R.H.; Morisset, A.; Keenan, K.; Normand, C.L.; Jeyaganth, S.; Boivin, M.; Tremblay, R.E. The development of prosocial behavior in young children: A prospective population-based cohort study. J. Genet. Psychol. 2011, 172, 221–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Li, D.; Cheng, Y. A comparative study of preschool children’s pro-social behavior at home and in kindergarten. J. Ningbo Univ. Educ. Sci. Ed. 2006, 28, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ruan, S.L. On children’s prosocial behavior and its influence factors. Stud. Early Child Educ. 2014, 11, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Peterson, L. Influence of age, task competence, and responsibility focus on children’s altruism. Dev. Psychol. 1983, 19, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Study variables.
Table 1. Study variables.
Core VariableName of VariableDescription of Variable
After-school tutoring for preschool childrenWhether children participate in after-school tutoring0 = No, 1 = Yes
Training typeInstrument: 0 = No, 1 = Yes; Art: 0 = No, 1 = Yes;
Dancing: 0 = No, 1 = Yes; Language: 0 = No, 1 = Yes;
Knowledge: 0 = No, 1 = Yes; Thinking training: 0 = No, 1 = Yes; Sports: 0 = No, 1 = Yes; Sentiment: 0 = No, 1 = Yes;
Type combinationSingle type: Art = 1000; Health = 0100; Language = 0010;
Science = 0001
Two-type: Art + Health = 1100; Art + Language = 1010; Art + Science = 1001; Health + Language = 0110; Health + Science = 0101; Language + Science = 0011
Three-type: Art + Health + Science = 1101; Art + Language +
Science = 1011; Health + Language + Science = 0111
Four-type: Art + Health + Language + science = 1111
Breadth0 = Not participating, 1 = Participation in single type, 2 = Participation in two types, 3 = Participation in three types, 4 = Participation in four types
Family socioeconomic status (SES)The highest occupational stratification of one parent1 = Lower level: general employee in commercial and service industries farmer; unemployed or laid-off. 2 = Middle level: teacher, engineer, doctor, or lawyer; professional technician (including driver); general employees in the production and manufacturing industries; self-employed. 3 = Upper level: leader or staff of state organ or institution; middle or senior-level leader of an enterprise/company
The highest level of education of one parent1 = Junior high school and below, 2 = Senior high school, 3 = Junior college, 4 = Undergraduate, 5 = Postgraduate and above
Family economic status1 = Difficult, 2 = Medium, 3 = Rich
Parent’s involvementParental engagement in family education (13)1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Social behaviorSocial skillsCooperation1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Social interaction1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Independence1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Problem behaviorExplosive1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Attention problem1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Aggressive1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Social withdrawal1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Anxiety1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always
Personal informationGender1 = Boy, 2 = Girl
Class level1 = Junior class, 2 = Middle class, 3 = Senior class
Ownership of kindergarten1 = Public, 2 = Private
Home location1 = City, 2 = Town, 3 = Village
Table
Table 2. Factors influencing children’s participation in after-school tutoring.
Table 2. Factors influencing children’s participation in after-school tutoring.
BS.EWalsdfpExp (B)Lower LimitUpper Limit
Gender−0.610.1615.431<0.0010.540.400.73
Junior Class and Senior Class−1.710.2073.021<0.0010.180.120.27
Middle Class and Senior Class−0.550.226.211<0.050.580.380.89
Low SES and Senior SES−1.360.3317.001<0.0010.260.130.49
Middle SES and Senior SES−0.760.316.111<0.050.470.260.86
Ownership of kindergarten−0.620.304.411<0.050.540.300.96
City and village1.050.3111.741<0.012.871.575.24
Town and village0.550.283.761>0.051.730.993.00
Table
Table 3. Impact of participation in different types of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social skills and problem behavior.
Table 3. Impact of participation in different types of after-school tutoring on preschool children’s social skills and problem behavior.
PredictorSocial SkillsProblem Behavior
Step 1Step 2Step 3Step 1Step 2Step 3
Gender0.110.070.070.100.120.16
Ownership of kindergarten−0.03−0.02−0.04−0.14−0.11−0.11
Difference between Middle Class and Junior Class0.050.050.050.030.080.09
Difference between Senior Class and Junior Class−0.08−0.08−0.07−0.18−0.13−0.14
Difference between town and city−0.010.00−0.02−0.14−0.16−0.18
Difference between village and city−0.22−0.20−0.19−0.01−0.04−0.02
Difference between middle SES and low SES−0.01−0.010.00−0.02−0.03−0.02
Difference between high SES and low SES−0.03−0.04−0.01−0.11−0.12−0.09
Parental involvement0.65 ***0.66 ***0.65 ***0.22 ***0.24 ***0.25 ***
Arts 0.170.09 0.230.18
Health −0.09−0.16 0.220.18
Language 0.190.12 0.360.32
Science 0.07−0.01 0.110.08
Arts * Health 0.32 *0.25 0.120.07
Arts * Language 0.100.02 −0.16−0.21
Arts * Science −0.09−0.16 0.59 *0.53
Health * Language −0.10−0.18 0.490.44
Health * Science 0.270.20 0.340.31
Language * Science 0.07−0.01 0.220.17
Arts * Health * Science 0.18 −1.04 *
Arts * Language * Science −0.27 −0.39
Health * Language * Science −0.37 0.20
Arts * Health * Language * Science 0.35 0.62
R20.4200.4360.4470.0610.0910.123
ΔR20.4200.0160.0120.0610.0290.033
F value31.541 ***15.513 ***13.311 ***2.853 **2.004 **2.312 **
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. The impact of the breadth of after-school tutoring on children’s social skills.
Table 4. The impact of the breadth of after-school tutoring on children’s social skills.
IndependenceSocial Skills
PredictorStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 1Step 2Step 3
Gender0.20 **0.18 **0.17 **0.21 ***0.20 ***0.19 ***
Ownership of kindergarten0.060.030.040.030.010.02
Difference between Middle Class and Junior Class0.24 **0.20 **0.19 *0.28 ***0.25 ***0.24 ***
Difference between Senior Class and Junior Class0.110.050.030.120.080.07
Difference between town and city0.000.020.020.000.010.01
Difference between village and city−0.16−0.12−0.12−0.21 *−0.19−0.19
Difference between middle SES and low SES0.01−0.01−0.020.040.030.02
Difference between high SES and low SES−0.02−0.06−0.08−0.01−0.04−0.05
Parental engagement0.48 ***0.47 ***0.47 ***0.61 ***0.60 ***0.61 ***
Breadth 0.08 *0.14 ** 0.050.09 *
Breadth2 −0.05 −0.03
R20.2490.2540.2570.4000.4020.403
ΔR20.2490.0060.0030.4000.0020.001
F value29.879 ***27.678 ***25.482 ***60.135***54.548***49.730 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Factors influencing children’s social behavior.
Table 5. Factors influencing children’s social behavior.
Predictor VariableSocial SkillsProblem Behavior
BβtBβt
Layer IParental involvement0.510.6121.87 ***0.090.164.58 ***
ΔR20.3680.025
F478.514 ***21.006 ***
Layer IIParental involvement0.510.6122.09 ***0.090.164.58 ***
Gender0.120.124.31 ***0.050.072.06 *
ΔR20.0140.005
F253.678 ***12.671 ***
Layer IIIParental involvement0.510.6122.43 ***
Gender0.120.124.23 ***
Middle Class and Junior Class0.120.103.75 ***
ΔR20.010
F176.512 ***
Layer IVParental involvement0.500.6021.97 ***
Gender0.110.113.90 ***
Middle Class and Junior Class0.110.093.4 3**
Breadth0.030.072.42 *
ΔR20.004
F134.637 ***
Layer VParental involvement0.500.6021.87 ***
Gender0.100.103.72 ***
Middle Class and Junior Class0.110.103.49 **
Breadth0.030.062.19 *
Village and city−0.10−0.06−2.13 *
ΔR20.003
F109.086 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shi, J.; Yue, Y.; Zhao, W.; Huang, Q. Towards the Sustainable Development of Young Children: Impact of After-School Tutoring on Chinese Preschoolers’ Social Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010181

AMA Style

Shi J, Yue Y, Zhao W, Huang Q. Towards the Sustainable Development of Young Children: Impact of After-School Tutoring on Chinese Preschoolers’ Social Behavior. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010181

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shi, Jin, Yaping Yue, Weiping Zhao, and Qiaoqiao Huang. 2023. "Towards the Sustainable Development of Young Children: Impact of After-School Tutoring on Chinese Preschoolers’ Social Behavior" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010181

APA Style

Shi, J., Yue, Y., Zhao, W., & Huang, Q. (2023). Towards the Sustainable Development of Young Children: Impact of After-School Tutoring on Chinese Preschoolers’ Social Behavior. Sustainability, 15(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010181

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop