







































 

 

 

 

 

Family Background, Parent Involvement, and 

Shadow Education Participation of Middle 

School Students: Empirical Analysis from 

CEPS2015 Data

Xiang Gao, Haiping Xue 

 
Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China

Abstract. Using the 2015 data of the China Education Panel Survey 

(CEPS), the relationship between family socioeconomic background, 

parent involvement, and shadow education participation was explored 

through structural equations. The results showed that: parent involve-

ment strengthened shadow education participation; parent involvement 
played a part in the mediating role in the influence of family socioeco-

nomic background on shadow education participation. Parent involve-

ment activates the advantage of family socioeconomic background. Fam-
ilies with high socioeconomic backgrounds are more active in partici-

pating in shadow education, and families of different strata are divided 
into opportunities for participation in shadow education. 

Best Evidence in Chinese Education 2021; 7(1):893-905. 

Doi: 10.15354/bece.21.ar004. 

How to Cite: Gao, X. & Xue, H. (2021). Family background, parent involvement, 

and shadow education participation of middle school students: Empirical analysis 

from CEPS2015 data. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 7(1):893-905. 

Keywords: Shadow Education; Parent Involvement; Family Socioeconomic Back-

ground; High-Order Mediation Effect; Structural Equation Model

 
 
 
 
 

 

About the Authors: Xiang Gao, Ed.D. Candidate, School of Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, 
China. Email: 393156557@qq.com. 

Correspondence to: Haiping Xue, Professor, Director, Institute of Educational Economics and Management, 
School of Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China. Email: xuehaiping_416@163.com. 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No.1, 2021 894 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Funding: This study is a phased achievement of the National Natural Science Foundation of China’s general pro-

ject “Family Capital, Shadow Education and Social Reproduction” (Project #: 71774112). 

Conflict of Interests: None. 
 

© 2021 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved. 

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea-

tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided 

the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher. 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 895 

N the 1960s, Coleman and his colleagues published the “Equal Educational Oppor-

tunity Report.” The report found that family background is an essential factor that 

affects student development and academic performance, and is the regenerating 

source of educational inequality and even social inequality, and has a more significant 

impact than school (Coleman, 1966). Family background currently affects student de-

velopment through two main paths: parental participation in education and providing 

children with differentiated educational opportunities. Parents’ educational participation 

indicates that parents influence students’ learning and promote students’ development 

through direct participation in students’ learning guidance and supervision (Epstein, 

1986). In the case of the same school, parents provide differentiated educational oppor-

tunities for their children outside the school mainly by participating in “shadow educa-

tion” (that is, extracurricular tutoring) to improve students’ educational competitiveness 

(Zhang & Bray, 2018). So what is the relationship between these two paths? What role 

does parent involvement play in the influence of family socioeconomic background on 

shadow education participation? 

Literature Review 

Coleman, Hill, Bronfenbrenner, Joyce Epstein, and others have defined parent involve-

ment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Coleman, 1988; Epstein, 1987; Hill & Taylor, 2004). The 

more recognized definition is: parent involvement is also called parent involvement, 

that is, “parent involvement in the child’s education.” Its purpose is for the excellent 

development and growth of children (Conger et al., 2007). In the empirical analysis of 

the connotation and types of parent involvement in China and abroad, specific opera-

tional definitions of parent involvement will be made, such as parental supervision of 

learning, homework guidance, parental expectations and parent-child communication, 

and parent-teacher communication (Morgan & Sørensen, 1999).  

Study on the Influence of Family Background on 

Shadow Education Participation 

Studies abroad have found that the family socioeconomic background has an essential 

influence on shadow education. Darby, Tansel and Bircan, Bray and Kwok used quanti-

tative methods to analyze the effect of family factors on extracurricular tutoring (Bray 

& Kwok, 2013; Southgate, 2009; Tansel & Bircan Bodur, 2008). Using qualitative in-

terviews and observation and tracking methods, Lareau found that middle-class children 

are more involved in organized extracurricular activities, including extracurricular tu-

toring activities (Lareau, 2009). 

Domestic scholars Haiping Xue, Binli Chen, Hongli Chu, Manchao Zeng, etc., 

used quantitative methods to analyze data and found their parents’ educational back-

ground, parents’ occupation, and family income have an impact on students’ participa-

tion in shadow education (Xue, 2016; Chen & Bai, 2015; Chu, 2009; Zeng et al., 2010). 

Xuelian Gao used the method of fieldwork to find that urban children mainly participate 

I 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 896 

in extracurricular tutoring in their spare time, and children from migrant workers’ fami-

lies mainly take “free-range” (Gao, 2017). 

Research on the Influence of Family Background on 

Parent Involvement 

The theory of social capital believes that the higher the family’s social and economic 

background, the higher the emphasis on education and active participation (Masarik & 

Conger, 2017). Family stress theory (McCubbin et al., 1980) believes that families with 

low socioeconomic conditions usually do not have high parent involvement behaviors 

due to enormous economic pressure. The family absence theory believes families with 

low parent involvement are rooted in the class’s massive gap (He, 2008). 

Global empirical studies have also found that family socioeconomic back-

ground strongly affected parent involvement (Balli, 1996; Bracey, 1996). Domestic 

scholars Xiaorui Huang (Huang & An, 2008), Chonghan Wu (Wu, et al., 2017), 

Guiqing An and Yang Yang (An, & Yang, 2018) all believed that families with higher 

socioeconomic backgrounds have higher parents’ enthusiasm for participating in their 

children’s learning. 

Research on the Impact of Parent Involvement on 

Shadow Education Participation 

At present, there are not many studies on the influence of parent involvement on shad-

ow education participation. Xiaoshan Lin’s research found that the longer parents spend 

with their children, the more children’s expenditure and opportunities for out-of-school 

education consumption (Lin, 2018). Haiping Xue studied structural equation modeling 

and found that parents’ educational expectations positively affect extracurricular tutor-

ing (Xue, 2017). Jing Li and Haiping Xue found that in academic tutoring, the longer 

parents spend with their children, and the more often they supervise homework each 

week, the more likely they are to participate in extracurricular tuition (Li & Xue, 2016). 

Jiali Li’s research found that parent-child companionship, parent-child activities, etc., 

can positively predict the participation probability of tutoring, while parent-child com-

munication and family-school communication have little effect (Li & Xue, 2019). 

Data Source and Variable Description 

The data used in this study all come from the 2014-2015 China Education Panel Survey 

(CEPS). In 2015, CEPS investigated the relevant situation of eighth-grade students in 

middle school. The variables used in the study are shown in Table 1. 

Results 

 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 897 

Table 1. Description of Variables in Statistical Analysis. 

Variable Type Variable Name Variable Description 

Shadow Educa-
tion 

Whether eighth grade students participate in 
shadow education 

0=no, 1=yes 

Family 
Socioeconomic 
Background 

Parent’s highest education 1=primary school and below, 
2=junior high school, 3=high school, 
4=junior college, 5=undergraduate 
and above 

Parents’ highest occupational stratification 1=lower level, 2=middle level, 
3=upper level 

Family’s financial situation 1=very difficult, 2=very difficult, 
3=medium, 4=relatively rich, 5=very 
rich 

Family Supervise How often do parents 
check homework a week 

1=no, 2=one to two days, 3=three to 
four days, 4=almost every day 

How often do parents 
guide homework a week 

1=No, 2=One to two days, 3=Three 
to four days, 4=Almost every day 

Parent 
Involvement 

Family 
Communicate 

Discuss school matters 
with parents 

1=never, 2=occasionally, 3=always 

Discuss with parents 
about classmates 

1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always 

Discuss teacher matters 
with parents 

1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always 

Discuss your concerns 
with your parents 

1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always 

Home school 
communication 

Number of parent-
teacher communication 
this semester 

1=never, 2=once, 3=two to four 
times, 4=five times and more 

Number of times teach-
ers communicated with 
parents this semester 

1=never, 2=once, 3=two to four 
times, 4=five times and more 

Family expect 
Parents’ expectations of 
their children’s education 

1=graduated from junior high 
school, 2=high school, 3=associate, 
4=undergraduate, 5=graduate and 
above 

Parents’ confidence in 
their children’s future 

1=not confident at all, 2=not very 
confident, 3=relatively confident, 
4=very confident 

Control 
Variable 

Gender 0=male, 1=female 

Grades 1=bad, 2=lower middle, 3=medium, 
4=upper middle, 5=very good 

 

 

 

The Impact of Family Socioeconomic Background and 

Parent Involvement on Shadow Education Participation 

In order to verify the research hypothesis, take shadow education participation as the 

dependent variable, select three variables of family socioeconomic background and ten 

variables of parent involvement as independent variables, and use gender and perfor-

mance as control variables to establish a binary logistic regression model as follows: 

 

Y = F (I, S, F) 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 898 

Table 2. The Influence of Family Socioeconomic Background 
and Parental Participation on Shadow Education Participation. 

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 

Gender: Female   0.25*** 0.29*** 0.22*** 0.25*** 0.29*** 0.29*** 

Grades   0.06** 0.07*** 0.03 -0.04 0.05** -0.03 

Family Socioeconomic Background 

Parents' Education 0.45*** 0.44*** 0.42*** 0.42*** 0.40*** 0.44*** 0.38*** 

Parent Occupation 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.35*** 0.35*** 0.34*** 0.35*** 0.33*** 

Economic Status 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.27*** 0.24*** 

Home Supervision 

Check Homework     0.20***       0.17*** 

Guide Homework     -0.04       -0.07** 

Family Communication 

Discuss School       0.13**     0.09* 

Discuss With 
Classmates 

      0.09*     0.06 

Discussion Teacher       0.09*     0.03 

Discuss Your Mind       0.02     -0.03 

Family Expectations 

Parent Expectations         0.13***   0.12*** 

Future Confidence         0.23***   0.15*** 

Family-School Communication 

Active 
Communication 

          0.16*** 0.12*** 

Passive 
Communication 

          0.00 0.00 

Constant Term -3.86*** -4.11*** -4.38*** -4.65*** -5.16*** -4.44*** -5.70*** 

Sample 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 

Cox & Snell R
2
 0.12 0.123 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 

Nagelkerke R
2
 0.17 0.170 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 

Note: *p means p < 0.1, **p means p < 0.05, ***p means p < 0.01. 

 

 

 

In the model, Y represents whether the student participates in shadow educa-

tion, I is an individual variable of the student, S is the family socioeconomic back-

ground, and F is parent involvement. 

In Table 2, there was a significant positive correlation between parents’ educa-

tional background, parents’ occupational grade, financial status, and student participa-

tion rate in shadow education (model 1). The shadow education participation rate of 

girls was significantly higher than that of boys, and the higher the score, the higher the 

participation rate of shadow education (model 2). 

In Model 3, students whose homework was checked frequently were more like-

ly to participate in extracurricular tutoring. In Model 4, “discussion school,” “discussion 

classmate,” and “discussion teacher” all had a significant favorable influence on stu-

dents’ participation in shadow education. In Model 5, “parent education expectations” 

and “confidence” had a positive and significant impact on shadow education participa- 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 899 

 

Figure 1. The Mediating Effect Model of Parental Participation in 
Four Dimensions. 

 

 

 

tion. This also verified previous literature results: the higher the parents’ expectations, 

the more confident they were in their children, and the more likely students were to par-

ticipate in extracurricular tutoring. In Model 6, “actively communicating with teachers” 

positively and significantly impacted students’ participation in extracurricular tutoring. 

Model 7 was a full-variable model; in addition to the index of homework guidance, 

most indicators of family socioeconomic background and parent involvement had a sig-

nificant positive impact on shadow education. Parent involvement had not completely 

replaced shadow education but had become the driving force for students to participate 

in extracurricular tutoring. 

Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Parent Involvement 

in the Influence of Family Socioeconomic Background 

in Shadow Education Participation 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 900 

Table 3. Intermediary Model Fitting Results of Various Dimen-
sions of Parent Participation in Affecting Shadow Education Par-
ticipation. 

Fitting Index CMIN DF CMIN/DF RMSEA NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI 

Home 
Supervision 

564.375 18 31.354 0.057 0.955 0.930 0.956 0.932 0.956 

Family 
Communication 

870.167 33 26.369 0.053 0.960 0.945 0.961 0.947 0.961 

Family-School 
Communication 

739.436 18 41.080 0.066 0.927 0.887 0.929 0.889 0.929 

Family 
Expectations 

585.170 1 7 34.422 0.060 0.940 0.901 0.942 0.904 0.942 

Judgment 
Criteria 

    < 5.0 < 0.10 > 0.9 > 0.8 > 0.9 > 0.8 > 0.9 

 

 

 

Based on the above research review and binary logistic regression analysis, and then 

referring to the structural equation related method (Hou et al., 2004), a mediating effect 

model between the three is constructed. 

The Mediation Effect of the Four Dimensions of Parent 

Involvement 

Figure 1 presents the analysis of the effect of family supervision, family communica-

tion, family-school communication, and family expectations as intermediaries. The di-

rect effects of family supervision, family communication, family-school communication, 

and family expectations on students’ participation in shadow education are 0.053, 0.056, 

0.060, 0.088, respectively, and the t-test results are all significant. It can be seen that 

family expectations have the most significant impact on students’ participation in extra-

curricular tutoring, followed by family-school communication, family communication, 

and family supervision. 

The formula for the total influence of family socioeconomic background on ex-

tracurricular tutoring participation is c=c’+a*b, where c’ is the direct influence of fami-

ly socioeconomic background on extracurricular tutoring. The real influence is the sum 

of direct and indirect influences. The total effect of family socioeconomic background 

on tutoring through the four parent involvement dimensions is family supervision 0.398, 

family communication 0.401, family-school communication 0.396, and family expecta-

tions 0.398.  

The fitting results of the four-dimensional mediation model are shown in Table 

3. Except for CMIN/DF > 5, all other fitting indexes of each parent involvement dimen-

sion reached an excellent level. The size of X2 (i.e., CMIN/DF) is related to the sample 

size N. When the sample size increases, X2 increases, so it is not limited to X2 as a dis-

criminant index, but also other fitting indices (Hou et al., 2004). The sample size of this 

 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 901 

 

Figure 2. The Mediating Role of Parent Involvement between 
Family Socioeconomic Background and Student Shadow Educa-
tion Participation. 

 

 

 

study is 9,191. It can be referred to other fitting indicators, and other observation data 

would fit better. 

Analysis of the high-level mediation effect of parent in-

volvement 

This study constructed a high-level mediation model in which family socioeconomic 

background influences student participation in shadow education. The mediation path 

model fits the data well: effective sample size N = 9,191, CMIN/DF = 29.416 > 5. Due 

to the large sample size, it cannot be judged by CMIN/DF alone. It should also be com-

bined with other fitting indexes and the rationality of the relationship between the vari-

ables, and whether the parameters’ estimation is appropriate (Hou et al., 2004). Approx-

imate root mean square error RMSEA = 0.056, normalized goodness of fit index NFI = 

0.920, comparative goodness of fit index CFI = 0.922, non-standardized goodness of fit 

index TLI = 0.904, and other fit indexes meet the criteria for judgment. These data indi-

cate that the entire model fits well with the actual observation data. 

The model standardized regression path coefficient results are shown in Figure 

2. The family socioeconomic background has a direct effect of 0.323 on student partici-

pation in shadow education, an indirect effect of 0.077 (0.532*0.145), and a total effect 



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 902 

of 0.400. Accordingly, the family socioeconomic background directly affects whether 

students participate in extracurricular tutoring and indirectly affect parent involvement. 

The direct effect of parent involvement on extracurricular tutoring is 0.145. 

From the model results, parent involvement plays a part in an intermediary role in fami-

ly socioeconomic background and shadow education participation. 

Conclusions and Discussion 

This study examined the relationship between family socioeconomic background and 

parent involvement in shadow education participation and reached the following con-

clusions: 

(i) Parent involvement is a powerful driving force for students to partici-

pate in shadow education, and the active participation of parents strengthens the partici-

pation in shadow education. Parent involvement has a significant positive impact on 

middle school student shadow education participation; that is, the higher the degree of 

parent involvement, the greater the chance of students getting shadow education. Spe-

cifically, family expectations have the most significant impact on shadow education 

participation, followed by family-school communication, family communication, and 

family supervision. Family expectations promote students to participate in tutoring most 

likely, mainly because parents hope to achieve social class upward mobility through 

education, and shadow education is one of the ways to improve educational competi-

tiveness. 

(ii) Parent involvement plays a part in an intermediary role in the influ-

ence of family socioeconomic background on shadow education participation. That is, 

family socioeconomic background affects the probability of students participating in 

shadow education through parent involvement. Specifically, family expectations have 

the most excellent intermediary effect in the family socioeconomic background, affect-

ing students’ participation in shadow education, followed by family supervision, family 

communication, and family-school communication. 

Studies have proposed that parent involvement can activate the advantages of 

family background and empower children’s school education (Lareau, 1987). Therefore, 

parent involvement provides advantages for children’s school education and affects the 

chance of receiving shadow education. Families of different classes have differentiated 

participation opportunities in shadow education: parent involvement activates the ad-

vantages of the family’s socioeconomic background, and families with high socioeco-

nomic backgrounds often participate more actively in shadow education. 

The research conclusions include the family socioeconomic background, parent 

involvement, and shadow education in the Chinese context, confirming Lareau’s re-

search in the United States. Lareau described in “Unequal Childhood” that middle-class 

American parents are more actively involved in students’ study and life and achieve 

“cooperative training” by arranging organized extracurricular activities for students; 

however, the working class is more inclined to “stocking.”, That is, let children 

“achieve natural growth” (Lareau, 2009). Different social classes make the degree of 

parent involvement different. Parents focus on activating resources based on class ad-



Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 903 

vantages, allowing their children to conform to educational organizations’ evaluation 

standards, and helping their children achieve success in school education (Lareau, 2009). 

This study explored the impact of parent involvement on shadow education participa-

tion, and to a certain extent, improved Lareau’s parent involvement theory. We reached 

relevant conclusions through quantitative analysis. However, it is impossible to specifi-

cally reveal how parent involvement activates family advantages, how different dimen-

sions of participation affect extracurricular tutoring and the internal process of parents’ 

tutoring decision-making. If the above questions can be supplemented by qualitative 

research, the fundamental research will be more informative. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Curcio, G., Ferrara, M., & De Gennaro, L. 

(2006). Sleep loss, learning capacity, and ac-

ademic performance. Sleep Medicine Review, 

10(5):323-337. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2005.11.001  

Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational 

opportunity [summary report (Vol. 2). US 

Department of Health, Education, and Wel-

fare, Office of Education. 

Epstein, J. (1986). Parents’ Reactions to Teacher 

Practices of Parent Involvement. The Ele-

mentary School Journal, 86(3):277-294. 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/461449  

Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2018). Equalising 

schooling, unequalising private supplemen-

tary tutoring: access and tracking through 

shadow education in China. Oxford Review 

of Education, 44(2):221-238. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389

710  

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the crea-

tion of human capital. American Journal of 

Sociology, 94(1988):S95-S120. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1086/228943  

Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental 

school involvement and children’s academic 

achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 

13(4):161-164. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2004.00298.x  

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of 

Human Development: Experiments by Na-

ture and Design. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-

versity Press. 

Epstein, J.L. (1987). Parent Involvement: What 

Research Says to Administrators. Education 

& Urban Society, 19(2):119-136. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245870190020

02  

Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An 

interactionist perspective on the socioeco-

nomic context of human development. An-

nual Review of Psychology, 58:175-199. 

DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.11

0405.085551  

Morgan, S. L., & Sørensen, A. B. (1999). Paren-

tal networks, social closure, and mathemat-

ics learning: A test of Coleman’s social capi-

tal explanation of school effects. American 

Sociological Review, 64(5):661-681. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2657368  

Zhao, Y., & Hong, Yi. (2012). Social capital and 

educational acquisition: A perspective of 

network resources and social closure. Socio-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2005.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1086/461449
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710
https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124587019002002
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124587019002002
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
https://doi.org/10.2307/2657368


Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 904 

logical Studies, 27(5): 47-69+243-244. 

[Chinese] 

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?d

bcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filenam

e=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqt

XBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVAC

cswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fu

zq  

Southgate, D.E. (2009). Determinants of shadow 

education: A cross-national analysis. Disser-

tation; The Ohio State University. 

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num

=osu1259703574  

Tansel, A., & Bircan Bodur, F. (2008). Private 

Supplementary Tutoring in Turkey: Recent 

Evidence on Its Various, Aspects, ep: 

1122804. DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1122804  

Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2013). Demand for pri-

vate supplementary tutoring: conceptual 

consiDerations and socioeconomic patterns 

in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Re-

view, 22(6):611-620. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-

7757(03)00032-3  

Lareau, A. (2009). Unequal Childhoods: Class, 

Race, and Family Life; Translated by Zhang 

Xu, Beijing: Peking University Press. 

Xue, H. (2016). Extracurricular tutoring, aca-

demic performance and social reproduction. 

Education & Economy, 2016(2):32-43. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-

4870.2016.02.005  

Chen, B., & Bai, X. (2015). Family socioeco-

nomic status, peer group pressure of parents, 

and tuition for urban primary school students: 

Based on a survey of primary schools in 

Haidian District, Beijing. Tsinghua Journal 

of Education, 36(5): 102-109. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001-

4519.2015.05.010208  

Chu, H. (2009). The background characteristics 

and personal factors of the extracurricular 

tutoring families of primary and middle 

school students in my country. Education 

Research Monthly, 2009(12):22-27. [Chi-

nese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-

2311.2009.12.016  

Zeng, M., Ding, X., & Shen, H. (2010). Analysis 

of the urban-rural differences in extracurric-

ular tutoring for junior high school students: 

Based on the survey of junior high school 

students’ extracurricular tutoring in Gansu, 

Hunan and Jiangsu provinces. Education & 

Economy, 2010(2): 7-11. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-

4870.2010.02.002  

Gao, X. (2017). The separated childhood: the 

after-school world of urban children and ru-

ral migrant children. Beijing Social Sciences, 

2017(9):24-33. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.1

70903  

Masarik, A.S., & Conger, R.D. (2017). Stress 

and child development: A review of the 

Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in 

Psychology, 13:85-90. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008  

McCubbin, H. I., Joy, C. B., Cauble, A. E., 

Comeau, J. K., Patterson, J. M., & Needle, R. 

H. (1980). Family Stress and Coping: A 

Decade Review. Journal of Marriage and 

Family, 42(4):855-871. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/351829  

He, R. (2008). Home school and community 

collaboration: from concept research to prac-

tice. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 

7-8. [Chinese] 

Balli, S. J. (1996). Family diversity and the na-

ture of parental involvement. In The Educa-

tional Forum. Taylor & Francis Group, 

60(2):149-155. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729609335117  

Bracey, G.W. (1996). SES and Involvement. Phi 

Delta Kappan, 78(2):169-170. 

https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c1

0f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842  

Huang, X., & An, G. (2008). The relationship 

between parent participation types and chil-

dren’s learning outcomes. Studies in Early 

Childhood Education, 2008(11):40-49. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11.

004  

Wu, C., Zhang, J., & Wang, M. (2017). What 

hinders parents’ participation in their chil-

dren’s education? Class differences, school 

selective inhibition and parent participation. 

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1259703574
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1259703574
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1122804
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2016.02.005
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2016.02.005
https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001-4519.2015.05.010208
https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001-4519.2015.05.010208
https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2009.12.016
https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2009.12.016
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2010.02.002
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2010.02.002
https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.170903
https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.170903
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008
https://doi.org/10.2307/351829
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729609335117
https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842
https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842
https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842
https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11.004
https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11.004


Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. 

Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 905 

Educational Research, 38(1):85-94. [Chi-

nese] 

http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/6

71297651.html  

An, G., & Yang, Y. (2018). A study on the im-

pact of parental participation of families 

with different socioeconomic status on their 

children’s academic achievements. Research 

in Educational Development, 38(20):17-24. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-

3855.2018.20.005  

Lin, X. (2018). “Purchase Hope”: Children’s 

Educational Consumption in Urban Families. 

Sociological Studies, 2018(4):163-190+245. 

[Chinese] 

https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal

-SHXJ201804007.htm  

Xue, H. (2017). Family capital and education 

acquisition: the perspective of shadow edu-

cation. Educational Science Research, 

2017(2):31-41+48. [Chinese] 

http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/6

71372794.html  

Li, J., & Xue, H. (2016). An Empirical Study on 

the Influence of Family Capital on Junior 

High School Students’ Participation in Ex-

tracurricular Tuition Activities. Journal of 

Schooling Studies, 13(6):43-52. [Chinese] 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-

2232.2016.06.006  

Li, J., & Xue, H. (2019). Parental participation, 

extracurricular tutoring and academic per-

formance of middle school students. Re-

search in Educational Development, 

39(2):15-22. [Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-

3855.2019.02.005  

Hou, J., Wen, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2004). Social 

Science Research Method Series: Structural 

Equation Model and Its Application. Educa-

tion Science Press. 

Lareau, A. (1987). Social Class Differences in 

Family-school Relationships: The Im-

portance of Cultural Capital. Sociology of 

Education, 60(2):73-85. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2112583  

Received: 03 December 2020 

Revised: 21 December 2020 

Accepted: 04 January 2021 

 

 

The Chinese version of this article has been published in Education Research Monthly 2020(9):3-

11+71. The English version has been authorized for being publication in BECE by the author(s) and 

the Chinese journal. 

高翔, 薛海平. (2020). 家庭背景、家长参与和初中生影子教育参与: 来自 CEPS2015 数据的实证
研究.教育学术月刊, 2020(9):3-11+71. 

 

http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/671297651.html
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/671297651.html
https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2018.20.005
https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2018.20.005
https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHXJ201804007.htm
https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHXJ201804007.htm
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/671372794.html
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/671372794.html
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2016.06.006
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2016.06.006
https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2019.02.005
https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2019.02.005
https://doi.org/10.2307/2112583

	Article-HaipingXue-BECE_title_29Jan2021
	Article-HaipingXue-BECE_Maintext29Jan2021

