Doctoral Dissertation

Factors Influencing Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper
Secondary Schools

SOEUNG SOPHA

Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation
Hiroshima University

September 2022

Factors Influencing Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper
Secondary Schools

D192448
SOEUNG SOPHA

A Dissertation Submitted to
the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperationof Hiroshima University in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
September 2022

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have received a considerable amount of support and assistance from several individuals whilewriting this dissertation.

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and respect to my main doctoral supervisor,
Professor HOTTA Taiji, for his critical and helpful comments, selfless support, andencouragement throughout my doctoral course and while writing this dissertation.

Second, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my sub-supervisors and examiners—
Professor SHIMIZU Kinya, Professor YOSHIDA Kazuhiro, Professor MARUYAMA
Yasushi, and Professor KITAMURA Yuto—for their insightful comments during all
examination stages, which truly enriched the quality of this dissertation. I would also love toexpress my deep gratitude for their understanding and considerations of the practicallimitations of this study conducted by a novice student during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, I am indebted and thankful to the people and the Government of Japan for granting me
financial support during my three-year academic journey at Hiroshima University. Without thisgrant, I could not have pursued the degree in Japan.

Fourth, I appreciate all people associated (i.e., directors of relevant departments at the Ministryof Education Youth and Sport, directors of the Provincial Office of Education, school
principals, teachers, students and parents, and friends) whom I cannot mention by name as
there are hundreds of them, for their sincere support and cooperation in each step of this study
process, from preparing for the research permit to the data collection and verification as welli

as at any inquiry for documents. Without their cooperation, this study would be unable to reachthis stage.

Fifth, I would like to convey my thanks to all Cambodian Saijoers who accompanied me
throughout my academic life and always dragged me out of my room to enjoy social gatherings
and Khmer dishes. They also encouraged me to walk around our neighborhood every evening
to be physically and mentally healthy. Without their profound love, I would find it hard to go
through this academic life with my son – Karuna, while my wife got stuck in the home country
following the lockdown.

Last but not least, I owe the deepest love and care to my mother, Duong Kimsan, and my wife,
Chim Vutheavy, for their spiritual and psychological support in all circumstances, although wewere thousands of miles away. I am grateful for their trust in my commitment and their patiencein waiting for my return. Without this spiritual inspiration, I would not have been able to comethis far.

Hiroshima university, September 2022
Soeung Sophaii

To my dearest father, Soeung Samhan (1952-1977), andmy respected uncle, Ung Saroeun (1944 - 2004), in loving memory!

iii

ABSTRACTPrivate tutoring (hereafter PT) has gained popularity across continents in different forms andscales. Some studies pointed out that PT expansion is prominent in Asia—especially incountries driven by Confucian culture—under competitive educational environments (e.g.,leaving/standardized examination and university entrance examination). Specifically,
Cambodian students have been facing challenges in learning the entire curriculum by studying
only in public schools. Thus, students invested their financial capital in PT before or after
official school hours to be able to continue the school syllabus in effective or appropriate
teaching. This pushed students who could not afford the same at a disadvantage, especially inthe secondary school leaving examination. In this regard, studies and media reports criticized
the quality of public education, including teacher unprofessionalism and inequity issue inCambodian society.

Cambodian authorities succeeded in expanding school access to all geographical areas, yet its
education faced other hindrances such as equity and quality of education. Studies and media
criticized the government’s low educational expenses, which imposed financial burden on
individual households, including PT expenses. Parents and students invested both money andtime before and after the official school hours through PT to continue learning to ensure
academic success. It also compelled schoolteachers to look for additional job(s), including
offering PT to their own students to supplement their family’s daily needs. Due to insufficientsalaries, Cambodian schoolteachers engaged in PT with their own students. Their engagement
has been unfortunately categorized as unprofessional and oppressive. The Royal Governmentof Cambodia (hereafter, RGC) and the Ministry of Education Youth and Sport (hereafter,
MoEYS) have launched a series of programs (i.e., abolished school fee and informal payment
including PT, increased schoolteachers’ salaries, amended professional ethic code of conductiv

which was known as “discouragement” scenario to regulate PT in literature, and been throughsome educational reforms); nonetheless PT practices are prevalent. Furthermore, the rate ofstudents who undertook PT outside school hours was approximately 76% from 2015 to 2020,
according to the national survey of Cambodia’s Socio-Economic Survey. Therefore, thequestion to be posed is why PT is still in demand at Cambodian upper secondary schools. In
response to this, this study aimed to answer two research questions:(1) Why did schoolteachers continue to offer PT at Cambodian upper secondary
schools?
(2) Why did students and parents continue to invest in PT at Cambodian upper
secondary schools?

To answer these research questions, the study employed both interview and survey approaches
for data collection and analysis to gain insights into the issue of PT at Cambodian upper
secondary schools. Narrative data were collected from 89 interviewees, including different
educational stakeholders (i.e., schoolteachers, Grade-12 students and their parents, school
principals, (vice-)directors of the Provincial Office of Education, and staff at the policy level),and 198 schoolteachers and 862 paired students and parents through a self-reported survey.
These data were collected from 12 upper secondary schools in Phnom Penh and four different
provinces through online applications due to the school closure following the COVID-19
pandemic.

Key findings of research question #1: The first research question aimed to gain insights into
why schoolteachers at upper secondary schools continue offering PT to their Grade-12
students. Overall, shortage of instructional time to complete the school syllabus, low salaries,
teacher specialization, and parents’ and school principals’ requests, were the primary reasonsv

influencing Cambodian schoolteachers to continue engaging in PT with their students. The
study unexpectedly found that anti-cheating examinations ironically impacted schoolteachers
to continue PT in response to increased demand because students and parents feared failure in
their baccalaureate examinations.

Key findings of research question #2: The second question intended to investigate why
Cambodian Grade-12 students and their parents continue investing in PT. The study yieldedsome key findings, such as schoolteachers’ uncaring pedagogies and oppression in school andfeeling of fear caused by the anti-cheating examination. Additionally, peer influence andinability to provide academic support at home were reasons parents continued investing in PT
for their children. This current study also observed the association of students’ learning tracks(science and social science) with their PT engagement rather than only observing the rates ofstudents taking PT of each academic subject as the previous studies did. This insight could
contribute toward the understanding of the policy development as well as MoEYS on thechallenges in promoting science track at upper secondary school. As a result, the study unveiled
that students’ learning track significantly impacted their decision to engage in PT. Both data
analyses consistently revealed that students in science were more likely to undertake PT thantheir peers in social science because their mathematics and science tests were more challenging.
However, some students in social science who switched their track at university also invested
in PT of subjects not for their baccalaureate examination but for their university entrances.

Key findings for the main research question: Although the anti-cheating examination policy
provides Cambodian Grade-12 students with an equitable opportunity, it was ironically found
to expand PT engagement and burden some students and parents, particularly students who
followed science track in this study. Students and parents feared failure at their baccalaureateviexamination since they did not trust in only learning in school. PT remained in demand due tothe insufficient instructional time to complete all contents of the MoEYS syllabus.
Additionally, PT was the only available additional education choice. Contradictorily, fromleadership positions’ viewpoint, they criticized schoolteachers’ lateness and absenteeism intheir daily teaching as a cause of lack of instructional time. In this aspect, they viewed theshortage of instructional time as a malpractice/trick of schoolteachers to blackmail theirstudents for PT, as discussed in the literature. This could imply that lack of school
accountability and monitoring system and poor school leadership of school principals were
why schoolteachers could engage in PT, as studies found in different developing countries.
Students’ learning track was also found to impact their continuation with PT. Students inscience track faced more financial burdens and challenges gaining passing grades. On thecontrary, students in social science were less likely to do these because they did not need toundertake PT for their core examination subjects. They could learn most of those subjects
through memorization skills while their peers required more practice (i.e., mathematics,
physics, chemistry, and biology). About 90% of social science also took mathematics andKhmer composition, compulsory subjects for both learning tracks. Nevertheless, they received
less burden in terms of finances and tests. These fewer burdens might affect the declined rates
of students enrolled in science at upper secondary school. For example, the rates of Cambodian
upper secondary school students enrolled in science track dropped from about 96% in 2014 toover 36% in 2021, according to Cambodia’s Department of General Education. The decline inscience track showed the great concern for MoEYS when attempting to promote science andmathematics. Nonetheless, some students may return to the science track when enrolling inuniversity, as shown in this study. However, local studies pointed out only a small percentage;for example, about 10% of students in social science at upper secondary schools enrolled inscience-related fields at university.

vii

In brief, PT for Grade-12 students, in particular, remained in great demand among
schoolteachers and students and their parents in Cambodia due to factors such as fear of failurein the anti-cheating examination and students’ learning track. PT played a role in thecontinuation of the school syllabus and the supplementation of what was excluded in theschool, especially practical skills. Ironically, implementing an anti-cheating examination, oneof the 2014 educational reform agenda, contributed toward the PT growth in Cambodia,
although it could give the nation the equitable opportunity in the Grade-12 baccalaureate
examination. This expansion was associated with the limited trust in the teaching and learning
quality during public school through the common excuses of insufficient instructional time.
This was considered a “teacher trick” from the leadership position’s viewpoint. This growth in
PT demand imposed financial burdens upon students’ families, especially science track.
Although the PT fee remained affordable for many Cambodian households, its expansion
developed an inequitable opportunity for particular disadvantaged groups. This expansion
would push them into debt and shift some students from a science track to social science togain social mobility through their baccalaureate examination.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. xvi
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. xvii
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 18
1.1Statement of problem.................................................................................................................. 18

1.1.1

An overview of the problem ................................................................................ 18

1.1.2

Issues in the Cambodian context.......................................................................... 20

1.2

Purpose and research questions ............................................................................................... 24

1.3

Significance of the study ........................................................................................................... 25

1.4

Definition of terms ...................................................................................................................... 25

1.5

Delimitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 28

1.6

Research ethics ............................................................................................................................. 29

1.7

Organization of the dissertation ............................................................................................... 30

Chapter 2 : CAMBODIA’S EDUCATION AND PRIVATE TUTORING ...................... 31
Overview of Cambodia’s education ....................................................................................... 31

2.1

2.1.1. Brief historical development .................................................................................................... 31
2.1.2

Basic education ............................................................................................................................ 33

2.1.3

Secondary education ................................................................................................................... 35

2.2

Examination system .................................................................................................................... 38

2.2.1

Impetus................................................................................................................. 38

2.2.2

Consequences....................................................................................................... 40

2.3

Private tutoring in Cambodia ................................................................................................... 43

2.3.1

Incidence and consequences ................................................................................ 43

2.3.2

Different stakeholders’ engagement in private tutoring ...................................... 46ix

2.3.3

Responses toward private tutoring ....................................................................... 49
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................................ 51

2.4

Chapter 3 : LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 53
3.1

Nature of private tutoring .......................................................................................................... 53

3.2

Factors related to education providers ................................................................................... 56

3.2.1

Pedagogical issues ............................................................................................... 56

3.2.2

Schoolteachers’ malpractices or tricks................................................................. 58

3.2.3

Schoolteachers-related factors ............................................................................. 59

3.3

Students and parents ................................................................................................................... 59

3.3.1

Gender disparity ................................................................................................... 59

3.3.2

Location and family SES ..................................................................................... 61

3.3.3

Subjects for tutoring and instructional time ......................................................... 61

3.4

Synthesis of literature ................................................................................................................. 63

Chapter 4 : METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 64
4.1

Research design ............................................................................................................................ 64

4.1.1
4.2

Conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 65
Research sites and participants ................................................................................................ 67

4.2.1

Research sites ....................................................................................................... 67

4.2.2

Samples and sampling.......................................................................................... 69

4.2.2.1

Schoolteachers ............................................................................................. 70

4.2.2.2

Students and parents .................................................................................... 70

4.2.2.3

Informants for the interview stage ............................................................... 71

4.3

Instruments and Data collection .............................................................................................. 73

4.3.1

Instruments........................................................................................................... 73

4.3.2

Piloting stage........................................................................................................ 75

4.3.3

Data collection ..................................................................................................... 77

4.3.3.1

Ethical procedure and its effects .................................................................. 77

4.3.3.2

Self-reported survey ..................................................................................... 79

4.3.3.3

Semi-structured interview ............................................................................ 79

4.3.3.3.1 Planning stage ...................................................................................... 79x4.3.3.3.2 Interviewing stage ................................................................................ 81
4.3.3.3.3 Post interview ....................................................................................... 82
4.3.4

Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 83

4.3.4.1

Interview data............................................................................................... 83

4.3.4.2

Survey data................................................................................................... 87

Chapter summary ......................................................................................................................... 94

4.4

Chapter 5 : TEACHERS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PRIVATE TUTORING ........................ 95
5.1

Brief methodology ....................................................................................................................... 95

5.1.1

Samples and data collection ................................................................................. 95

5.1.2

Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 97

5.2

Narrative findings ...................................................................................................................... 100

5.2.1

Reasons to continue engaging in PT .................................................................. 101

5.2.1.1

System-related factors................................................................................ 103

5.2.1.2

Teachers’ personal reasons ........................................................................ 106

5.2.1.3

Feeling of obligation .................................................................................. 108

5.3

Survey results .............................................................................................................................. 109

5.3.1

Descriptive and analysis results ......................................................................... 109

5.3.2

Teachers’ attitudes and teaching ........................................................................ 112

5.3.3

Individual-related factors ................................................................................... 113

5.4

Reasons not to engage in private tutoring........................................................................... 115

5.5

Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 118

Chapter 6 : STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PRIVATE TUTORING ....................... 120
6.1

Brief methodology ..................................................................................................................... 120

6.1.1

Samples and data collection ............................................................................... 120

6.1.2

Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 122

6.2

Narrative findings ...................................................................................................................... 125

6.2.1

Students' and parents’ reasons for undertaking private tutoring ........................ 125

6.2.1.1

Personal aspect ........................................................................................... 128

6.2.1.2

System-related aspect................................................................................. 130

6.2.1.3

Society-related aspect ................................................................................ 134

xi

6.3

Survey results .............................................................................................................................. 135

6.3.1

Descriptive results.............................................................................................. 135

6.3.2

School and individual-related factors ................................................................ 138

6.3.3

Family-related factors ........................................................................................ 139

6.4

Students who opted out of private tutoring ........................................................................ 140

6.5

Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 143

Chapter 7 : DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 145
7.1

Summary of key findings ........................................................................................................ 145

7.2

Education system aspects ........................................................................................................ 147

7.2.1

Teaching pedagogies and syllabus ..................................................................... 147

7.2.2

Anti-cheating examination ................................................................................. 149

7.3

Personal aspect ........................................................................................................................... 150

7.3.1

Teachers’ specialization and students’ learning track ....................................... 150

7.3.2

Family socio-economy ....................................................................................... 152

7.4

Societal aspect ............................................................................................................................ 153

7.5

Private tutoring and social mobility ..................................................................................... 153

7.6

Chapter summary ....................................................................................................................... 155

Chapter 8 : CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 157
8.1

Summary of key findings ........................................................................................................ 158

8.2

Overall discussion of the main objective ............................................................................ 161

8.2.1

Anti-cheating examination ................................................................................. 161

8.2.2

Learning tracks................................................................................................... 163

8.3

Equity issue among learning track/teaching specialization ........................................... 164

8.4

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 165

8.5

Final remarks .............................................................................................................................. 166

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIXES .......................................................................................................................................... 193
Appendix 1: Research permit issued by MoEYS ........................................................................... 193
xii

Appendix 2: Research ethics from university .................................................................................. 196
Appendix 3: Cambodia’s education system ..................................................................................... 197
Appendix 4: Expenditure on education (% of GDP) of Asian countries ................................. 198
Appendix 5: Research settings ............................................................................................................. 199
Appendix 6: Written consent form...................................................................................................... 203
Appendix 7a: Self-reported survey questionnaire for schoolteachers ...................................... 206
Appendix 7b: Self-reported survey questionnaire for students................................................... 214
Appendix 7c: Self-reported survey questionnaire for parents ..................................................... 224
Appendix 8a: Interview protocol for schoolteachers ..................................................................... 231
Appendix 8b: Interview protocol for students ................................................................................. 234
Appendix 8c: Interview protocol for parents ................................................................................... 238
Appendix 8d: Interview protocol for (vice)school principals ..................................................... 240
Appendix 8e: Interview protocol for (vice)director of POE and policy level ........................ 243
Appendix 9: Coefficient agreement of codings ............................................................................... 245

xiii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Basic Education ................... 34
Table 2.2: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Grade 10 ............................... 35
Table 2.3: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Grades 11 and 12 ................. 36
Table 2.4: Comparison of scores by exam subjects before and after the 2014 reform ........... 39
Table 2.5: Passing rates of Grade 12 students from 2013 to 2021.......................................... 43
Table 4.1: Number of schools and population ........................................................................ 69
Table 4.2: Targeted samples for the study .............................................................................. 71
Table 4.3: Remained population for the study ........................................................................ 78
Table 4.4: Total and rates of respondents among the selected participants by type ............... 79
Table 4.5: Retention number of informants for the interviews (by school type) .................... 81
Table 4.6: Number of bring-forward transcripts for analysis ................................................. 83
Table 4.7: Excerpt of codebook used for analysis .................................................................. 85
Table 4.8: Examples of comparison table (after condensation) .............................................. 86
Table 4.9: Factor loading of teachers’ predictors ................................................................... 89
Table 4.10: Factor loading of students’ perception of learning at public school .................... 90
Table 4.11: Factor loading of students’ perception of private tutoring classes ...................... 91
Table 4.12: Factor loading of influence by others .................................................................. 91
Table 4.13: Factor loading of teachers’ teaching attitude ....................................................... 92
Table 4.14: Factor loading of individual socio-economic status ............................................ 93
Table 5.1: Demographic information of the informants for interviews .................................. 96
Table 5.2: Model estimation for teachers’ choices of PT ....................................................... 98
Table 5.3: Description of variables for private tutoring supply side (n = 198) ...................... 99
Table 5.4: Teachers’ reasons for engaging in PT.................................................................. 101
Table 5.5: Descriptive results of variables included in the analysis ..................................... 110

xivTable 5.6: Regression coefficient of factors affecting teachers’ PT engagement ................. 111
Table 5.7: Significant factors of teachers’ attitude predicted PT engagement ..................... 113
Table 5.8: Significant factors of individuals predicted teachers’ PT engagement................ 114
Table 5.9: Schoolteachers’ reasons for not engaging in PT (interview) ............................... 117
Table 5.10: Reasons for not engaging in PT (survey)........................................................... 118
Table 6.1: Demographic information of the informants for interviews ................................ 121
Table 6.2: Methods of estimation for students’ PT engagement .......................................... 123
Table 6.3: Description of variables for students’ PT engagement (n = 862) ........................ 123
Table 6.4: Display matrix of students and parents’ reasons to invest in tutoring ................. 126
Table 6.5: Descriptive results of variables included in the analysis ..................................... 136
Table 6.6: Regression coefficient of factors affecting students’ PT engagement ................. 137
Table 6.7: Significant individual-related factors predicted students’ decision to demand PT................................................................................................................................................ 139
Table 6.8: Significant parent-related factors predicted students’ PT engagement ............... 140
Table 6.9: Reasons not to invest in PT (Interview)............................................................... 141
Table 6.10: Reasons not to invest in PT (Survey)................................................................. 142
Table 7.1: Rate differences for private tutoring by learning track and subject ..................... 151

xv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Average annual expenses in education per household ......................................... 37
Figure 2.2: Students taking private tutoring after school hours, by school level ................... 45
Figure 2.3: Government expenditures (% of GDP) on education in total .............................. 46
Figure 2.4: Average private tuition expenses per household .................................................. 49
Figure 3.1: Approximate rates of students taking private tutoring in Cambodia ................... 56
Figure 3.2: Rate of students taking private tutoring by gender .............................................. 60
Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.2: Overall poverty rate by province .......................................................................... 68
Figure 4.3: Components of data analysis: Interactive model.................................................. 84
Figure 7.1: Approximate pass rates by learning track from 2014 to 2019 ........................... 151

xvi

ABBREVIATIONSADB: Asia Development BankCPP

: Cambodia’s People Party

COVID: Coronavirus Disease

CSES: Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey

DOE: District Office of Education

EMIS: Education Management Information System

EFA: Education for All

FUNCINPEC : Front uni National pour un Cambodge Indépendant, Neutre, Pacifique, et
Coopératif (in French), which translated in English as National United front
for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia
GDP: Gross Domestic Products

JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency

KAPE: Kampuchea Action to Promote Education

MoEYS: Ministry of Education Youth and SportMoP: Ministry of Planning

NIS: National Institute of Statistics

POE: Provincial Office of EducationPT: Private (supplementary) Tutoring

RGC: The Royal Government of Cambodia

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

UN: United Nations

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

UNTAC: United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia

WB: World Bank

xvii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the current study’s intent and briefly describes the ways in which
the intent was investigated. First, it introduces private tutoring (hereafter, PT) by
schoolteachers and its overall impacts on education before highlighting the problem to bestudied in the Cambodian context. Second, it presents the study’s purpose and questions
aimed to be addressed with a brief explanation of how they were answered. Finally, thesignificance of the study, delimitation, and some related terminologies are presented.

1.1 Statement of problem
In many countries, PT was commonly known as “shadow education” in the early 1990s. The“shadow” metaphor dated since the early 1990s, following Stevenson and Baker’s pioneer
work in 1992 (Bray et al., 2018). This term is widely used to describe PT as its curriculum
mimics the mainstream one (Bray, 1999b). Although the definition of PT varies based oncontext (Brehm, 2017), a standard definition of PT is teaching academic subjects in exchange
for a fee from individual students and parents (Bray, 2009). This study employed this common
definition of PT but scoped it to only PT by schoolteachers. PT's goal is to assist students inlearning subjects of the school curriculum better. In its literature, activities related to PT havebeen widely categorized as supplementation, academic, and privateness (Bray, 2017). The
present study primarily focuses on the first two classifications—supplementation andacademic—as they are related to academic subjects taught at and examined by the school,
which were aligned with the current study’s intent.

1.1.1 An overview of the problem
PT caused significant issues on equity and quality of education, although some positive
contributions had been noted. Previous studies reported some positive contributions of PT
18

toward education; for instance, supporting slow learners to catch up with their peers (Baker etal., 2001), providing additional instructions and fostering academic achievement (Brehm et al.,2012; Entrich, 2020; Ghosh & Bray, 2020), enhancing self-esteem (Hajar, 2018), improving
parental involvement (Silova et al., 2006), and supplementing schoolteachers’ income (Bray,
1999a; Dang & Rogers, 2008). However, its negative effects are focused upon in the literature
because PT created equity in education through schoolteacher unprofessionalism due toinsufficient salaries (see Bray, 2013b, 2020; Guill et al., 2021). In this regard, researchers andeducators have alerted relevant authorities and policymakers to pay attention to the quality andequity of education at national and international levels. Nevertheless, some governments andpolicymakers seem to be reluctant to take action on PT expansion; some also consider it out of
their scope (Bray, 1999b, 2003; Bray et al., 2016; Jayachandran, 2014; Lee, 2005; Mori &Baker, 2010). These impacts could be observed from three dimensions: society, students andtheir parents, and schoolteachers. For the society, the expansion of PT has been detrimental tosocial equality, which contradicts the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights: “Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational
secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every
appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education” (Article13) (Bray & Kwo, 2013; Brehm & Silova, 2014a; Jung, 2018; Manzon & Areepattamannil,
2014). Furthermore, socioeconomic status and geographical areas affected students’ choices toaccess PT. For instance, well-to-do families invested in PT in different forms for their children
to ensure their academic success, unlike their economically underprivileged peers (Bray, 2009;
Dang & Rogers, 2008; Kwok, 2010; Mahmud & Kenayathulla, 2018; Zhang & Bray, 2017).
Moreover, students in urban areas had more access to various forms of PT compared to theirrural counterparts (Bray, 2009, 2017; Bray & Bunly, 2005; Brehm et al., 2012). Simply put,
students may not be able to learn the school curriculum properly unless they availed PT.

19

Therefore, PT pushed underprivileged students to a disadvantage—particularly in secondary
examination—increased financial burdens and students’ workload, and diminished theirinterest in public school (Hammond, 2018; Jayachandran, 2014). Similarly, schoolteachers’
effective teaching and professionalism in public schools are hampered by PT, which is anavenue for supplementary income for them (Bray, 2013; Bray et al., 2016, 2018; Brehm et al.,2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Hammond, 2018). Specifically, PT undermined the teachingprofession in low-income countries where schoolteachers generally engaged in PT for
additional income. The primary reasons for engaging in PT include low salaries and lenient or
non-existing PT regulations, compared to their counterparts in more developed countries where
schoolteachers were offered sufficient salaries (Bray, 2015; Kobakidze & Suter, 2020;
Manzon, 2018).

The expansion of PT and schoolteacher unprofessionalism generated social inequity, erodedsocietal trust in public education, and intensified academic competition through standardized
examination (see Bray, 2017; Bray & Kwo, 2013; Silova, 2009). This phenomenon digresses
public education from its original purpose: “education of the public, for the public, andaccountable to the public” through too much focus on academic performance/test scores andother forces such as “marketization, privatization, and commercialization” (Biesta et al., 2021
p.1-2). Therefore, when learning competition and high-stakes examinations have become thegovernment’s intent, PT starts to expand (Entrich, 2014; Tesar et al., 2021; Yung, 2021).

1.1.2 Issues in the Cambodian context
Cambodia, a low-income country, has also been influenced by international donors and theglobal education agenda (e.g., Education For All [EFA], Millennium Development Goals[MDGs], Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs], specifically SDG4), which urged the20country to reform its education and practices quickly. With support from various international
donors/agents (e.g., USAID, JICA, World Bank, ADB), these adaptations propelled school
access for the nation between the 1990s and late 2000s before concerns about educational
quality were brought into its reform agenda in the 2010s. The 2014 educational reform is an
example of steps taken to preserve the quality of public school education (see Bredenberg,
2022).

Although Cambodian authorities succeeded in expanding school access to all geographicalareas, they faced hindrances such as equity and quality of education (Bredenberg, 2022; Brehm
et al., 2012; Keng, 2009; Ogisu & Williams, 2015). Noticeably, studies and media criticized
the government’s low educational budgets (see Figure 2.3), which imposed financial burden
on individual households for informal payments—including PT fees—within the fee-freeeducation system. Parents and students invested money and time after the official school hours
through PT to continue learning the entire school syllabus and ensure academic success (Brehm
et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; de Guzman, 2007). Additionally, it compelledschoolteachers to seek additional job(s), including supplying PT to their own students for someextra income (Brehm, 2015; Brehm & Aktas, 2020; Cambodia Independent Teachers
Association [CITA], 2010; Naren & Blomberg, 2014; Tandon & Fukao, 2015). The pass rateof Grade-12 students rapidly declined in the 2014 baccalaureate examination. Bredenberg(2022, p. 70) criticized that the huge plummet in pass rate signaled an ineffectiveness of bothpublic secondary school and PT classes in preparing students for their baccalaureate
examination. However, this rate has gradually recovered in subsequent years (see Table 2.4).
The Ministry of Education Youth and Sport (hereafter, MoEYS) (2018b) reported positivechanges in schoolteachers' and students’ behavior and performance in their teaching and21

learning. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the empirical studies have analyzed
these changes. Therefore, this study aimed to bridge this gap.

Studies have reported low salaries as one of the primary causes of the PT expansion andunprofessional or corrupt practices in education (e.g., shortening syllabus contents during
school hours, absenteeism for another additional job for supplementary income) (Benveniste
et al., 2008a; Bray, 2003; Bray et al., 2016, 2018; Dang & King, 2016; Tandon & Fukao, 2015).
Cambodia is no exception to these issues among low-income countries. Empirical studies,
reports, and media reported a strong relationship between teachers’ unprofessionalism and PT
expansion, as noted from the 1990s during (re)modernizing its education system andcommitting toward EFA (see Brehm & Silova, 2014). Dawson (2009) noted that the PT
expansion had a significant negative influence on Cambodian families’ expenditures, andplaced underprivileged students at a disadvantage (e.g., missing some parts of the school
syllabus, repeating grades, and dropping out). NGO Education Partnership (2007, p. 17) andde Guzman (2007, p. 13) reported that a family’s total expenses on PT per child at Cambodia’s
basic education level was 72% of the total school fee per year. The expense was much higher
in Phnom Penh than in other areas. Although Cambodia does not have any specific policy on
regulating PT, as a response to the society and media’s criticism, the RGC and MoEYS haveaimed to stop PT since the mid-1990s through implementing several programs (e.g., abolishingschool registration fee, forbidding all types of informal payments including PT fee,decentralizing school management and amending professional ethics code of conduct) tominimize schoolteachers’ unprofessionalism and PT engagement (see Bray & Bunly, 2005;
Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Dawson, 2009). For instance, Articles 13, 17, 25, and 27 of teachingprofessional ethics code of conduct instruct teachers not to engage in personal gain, including
offering PT (RGC, 2008). In the literature, using this form of regulation to instruct22

schoolteachers not to engage in PT is known as discouragement—one of the PT regulations or
scenarios (Bray & Kwo, 2014, pp. 44–45). Additionally, RGC increased the rates of
expenditure on education and teachers’ salaries sequentially. For example, schoolteachers’salaries have also substantially increased about threefold as MoEYS’ education budget
increased from USD 343 million in 2014 to USD 848 million in 2019. About 80% of thisincrease was attributed to the growth of the public wage; for example, the starting salaries forlower secondary schoolteachers increased from USD 1,259–3,876 to USD 1,814–4,222 peryear within the same period (MoEYS, 2021b; World Bank, 2020b). Yet, empirical studies andmedia reports revealed continuation of unprofessional behavior among schoolteacher for
supplementary income through PT engagement (see Dawson, 2009; Khy, 2019). For instance,
they withheld educational content and slowed down their teaching during public school,
embarrassed non-tutored students, and tended to favor their tutees by giving them higher grades
and allowing them to cheat during examinations (e.g., Bray, 2013; Bray et al., 2016, 2018;
Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Dawson, 2009). Maeda (2019) also depicted that
schoolteachers’ teaching pedagogies and unprofessionalism influenced students’ engagementin unethical and corrupt practices, mainly cheating. Cheating in the examination was often
mentioned as a part of research on PT (e.g., Bray et al., 2015; Brehm, 2015; Dawson, 2009,2011). In the same line, studies and media indicated that Cambodian students engage in such
unethical practices from a young age (Channyda & Cuddy, 2015; Dawson, 2009, pp. 62, 71).
In this regard, society and stakeholders called for serious action from the government against
unethical practices to promote equity and quality in education and reinstate trust in publicschools (see Channyda & Cuddy, 2015; Khiev & Ty, 2011). RGC and MoEYS responded toschoolteachers’ low salaries and employed “discouragement” to deal with PT, which waslabeled as an unethical practice by RGC in 2008. Nevertheless, national surveys and media
studies revealed that schoolteachers and students continued engaging in PT. The rate of23

students undertaking PT was approximately 76% in upper secondary school from 2015 to 2020,
according to Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey (hereafter, CSES) (see Figure 2.2). Therefore,
the question as to why PT is still in high demand at the school level in Cambodia needs to beaddressed.

1.2 Purpose and research questions
This study investigated the relevant educational stakeholders’ perceptions of PT to identify thereasons they engage in PT at Cambodian upper secondary schools. Therefore, this study aimed
to answer the main research question: Why do schoolteachers, students, and their parents stillengage in PT at Cambodian upper secondary schools?
To realize this research intent, the study aimed to address the following sub-research questions:(1) Why did schoolteachers continue to offer private tutoring at Cambodian upper
secondary schools?
(2) Why did students and parents continue to invest in private tutoring at Cambodian
upper secondary schools?

The study employed interview and survey approaches for data collection and analysis. Data
were collected from schoolteachers, students, and parents who engaged and did not engage inPT, and other relevant stakeholders such as school principals, (vice-)directors of the targeted
Provincial Office of Education, and staff in charge of secondary education at the policy level.
The inductive approach for content analysis was employed for interview data by coding
concepts according to the frequency of words or phrases appearing in the transcripts. Adding
to this approach, the interactive model was employed to ensure the enrichment of theinformation or data since this model allows the researcher to move backward and forward
during the analysis. Regarding the survey data, a binary logistic regression was employed as24the outcome variable of this study was dichotomously coded. Then both findings and results
were combined and compared for an insightful discussion.
1.3 Significance of the study
First, although previous studies’ findings emphasize the causes and effects of PT in Cambodia,
they paid more attention to this phenomenon in basic education. However, the actual situationand policy implications regarding PT at Cambodian upper secondary schools for equity issues
have not been specified. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap. Second, existing
literature emphasized both positive and negative aspects of PT, which could caution relevant
stakeholders, researchers, and policymakers toward PT expansion in general. However, there
is still limited discourse among them, perhaps due to the limitation of methodological use tounderstand PT. Several existing studies have employed a quantitative approach. Therefore, thestudies did not understand in-depth phenomena such as how PT emerged or developed in a
specific context (Jung, 2018). Thus, this study combined both interview and survey approaches
for its design to gain insight into the PT development in the Cambodian context. Third, thisstudy will project more concrete pictures of how PT for their own students is deteriorating to
the conditions of equitable distribution of educational opportunities to upper secondary school
students. Furthermore, this study will elucidate the effectiveness and repercussions ofsecondary education policies and explain why PT in Cambodia still exists and is in demand.
Finally, to the best of our knowledge, this empirical study is the first of its kind to investigate
the effect of learning tracks—science and social science—on PT engagement in the Cambodian
context.

1.4 Definition of terms
Some important terms were frequently used in this study report, as listed below. Moreover,some definitions of terms were adjusted accordingly to ensure contextual understanding during

25

the interpretation and translation since most of the terms used in this field of study were written
in English.
•

Schoolteachers or teachers refer to public or government teachers.

•

Tutees or tutored students are those who take PT classes.

•

A tutor is a schoolteacher who provides tutoring regardless of the tutoring type s/he offers.

•

A non-tutee or non-tutored student is a student who does not undertake PT classes.

•

A non-tutor is defined as a schoolteacher who does not engage in private tutoring.

•

A mainstream school is defined as a public or government school in this study.

Some terms should be identified when referring to outside-school learning activities in the
Cambodian context. Cambodians commonly address the learning process outside official
school hours as “supplementary” ([banthem] in the native language, Khmer) regardless of its
arrangement to cover their practices. Four common terms are used to refer to supplementary
or any outside-school learning activities; however, they differ from one another.
•

Supplementary classes are learning groups formed by students for academic subjects. It
also means study club ([kloeb seksaa] in Khmer), where students teach other students ofthe same or cross-age/grade free of charge. It is a self-study group in which students learn
together by taking turns explaining and supporting each other without schoolteachers'
involvement. One student who is good at one subject leads that learning session
accordingly. The term “supplementary” also refers to study sessions beyond official hours
that students pay to attend. It is commonly known as fee-paid tutoring or fee-extra class([rien kuor] in Khmer).

•

Remedial courses or classes are offered by schoolteachers of concerned subjects to provide
more instructional hours to slow learners. It is called [rien bampon] in Khmer. Teachersof this course are assigned by the school principal. The payment scales vary according to26

school areas and possibilities of each school, while some schools may receive somefinancial contribution from the concerned students’ parents based on their agreement.
•

Preparation is a learning course that is arranged by schools some months before thenational/baccalaureate examination. It is called [rien trieam] in Khmer. This course isoffered to every student in the diploma-granting grades (i.e., Grades 9 and 12) to revise
and practice knowledge and skills before their national/baccalaureate examination. Someschools invite teachers to teach this course voluntarily, whereas teachers in other schools
are financially supported by a politician in charge of their area. This course is notcompulsory, but the Provincial Office of Education (hereafter referred to as POE)
encourages each school to conduct it.

This study only covered supplementary learning, [rein kuor], which students must pay for. It
is purposively termed as PT to avoid misinterpretation of the term “supplementary” by
informants, although the term “private supplementary tutoring” has been used in the study of
PT in the same context so far. Additionally, PT in this study is defined as fee-paid learning ofacademic subjects outside official/school hours offered by public school teachers to theirstudents for additional income.

•Private tutoring types: Brehm (2021) described five available types of PT in Cambodia in
his latest book. These types are also widely used in studies focusing on PT.
o Regular PT is a tutoring type that mimics mainstream school curricula andresembles mainstream schools in both class size and layout.
o Special PT is a tutoring class that targets different markets in the form of one-toone or small groups of students.

27

o PT during holidays is a tutoring class conducted before the new school year
commences.
o PT at private school refers to a tutorial school or center offering various tutoringclasses. This type is growing significantly in city center.
o Online PT is offered through online platforms, and its popularity is increasing due
to growing disposable incomes and the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

PT regulations: Regarding the context in which schoolteachers provide PT, four basic
scenarios are used when referring to PT regulations (Bray & Kwo, 2014 pp. 44–45; Liu &Bray, 2020, p. 364).
o Official prohibition is a scenario in which mainstream schoolteachers are notallowed to offer PT. They cannot supply this service to students for whom they are
responsible at the mainstream school or students studying in both the school inwhich they are employed and other schools (e.g., Bhutan, Japan, Korea).
o Discouragement is a scenario in which professional codes of ethics, rather thanregulations, deter teachers from offering PT. This scenario is only used to prompt
the teachers to not offer PT (e.g., Cambodia, China, Georgia).
o Permission if approved is a situation wherein teachers cannot offer PT unless they
are permitted by the school or education authorities based on several conditions(e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam).
o Laissez-faire is a scenario that leaves the decision in the hand of teachers and theirclients (e.g., Macao, Philippines, Thailand).

1.5 Delimitations of the study
This study had several limitations. First, the focus of the study was on students’ and teachers’
decisions on PT engagement at the upper secondary school level, particularly only grade 12.

28

Therefore, data representing students and teachers from other grades, such as primary andlower secondary school as well as other grades at upper secondary school, were not included.
Additionally, the scope of PT was limited to only academic subjects (i.e., subjects required forthe national/baccalaureate examination) rather than PT of non-academic subjects (e.g.,
computer, music, sports), which are not related to this purpose. Therefore, the study’s
inferences and conclusions were restricted within this capacity. Second, the data for this current
study were collected virtually during the school closure following the COVID-19 outbreak.
Thus, there were limitations in terms of obtaining information and data due to the instability ofinternet connectivity. Third, some selected schools in targeted areas could not be approached
for data collection because they were used as quarantine centers or were in the red zone. At thesame time, some schools decided not to participate after discussing the topic of the study andits purposes, although the researcher submitted the MoEYS’ permit. Some of them requested
to wait until data could be collected face-to-face. Therefore, this reduced both research sites
and sample size, which may affect the possibility of generalizing the study findings. Finally,as the data for this study were self-reported and auto-biographical, the study acknowledgedthat some informants might have generated false/inaccurate memories (Schwarz & Sudman,1994).

1.6 Research ethics
Since this is a cross-sectional study involving data collection from relevant individuals,
research ethics were met through the following steps. First, we sent a letter to request a researchpermit to Cambodia’s MoEYS for approval to conduct the field study from the targeted upper
secondary schools. Then the approved research permit was sent to the selected Provincial
Office of Education Youth and Sport to inform about the targeted schools and research process
as well as the duration for data collection; following this, the permit was sent to the targeted
upper secondary schools including piloting provinces and schools (Appendix 1). Since the data29

for the study was collected online, the researcher approached each school principal for approval
to work with teachers responsible for the selected grades. Next, we contacted students for theirconsent to participate as respondents before the links for survey questionnaires (for students
and parents) were sent out to them. A similar process was also conducted with targetedschoolteachers. In addition to this, prior to the fieldwork, the researcher was approved by the
Research Ethics Committees of Hiroshima University to claim that the research abides by the
research ethics (Appendix 2).

1.7 Organization of the dissertation
This dissertation is structured into eight chapters. Each chapter presented relevant issues of thestudy’s intent that PT is still in demand in Cambodia. Chapter one introduces the focus of thestudy by presenting the research problem, study’s purpose, and research questions, including
how they would be investigated in brief. Then it highlights the study's significance, followed
by definitions of related terms, delimitation of the study, and research ethics. Chapter two
exhibits the Cambodian case by highlighting its education situation and historical development,
including the examination system, the incidence and consequences of PT, and commitment
toward regulating PT. Chapter three presents the relevant literature by highlighting the overall
concepts and nature of PT, evidence from previous local and international studies on driving
factors influencing teachers to engage and students as well as parents to invest in PT, andconceptualizes the current study’s conceptual framework. Chapter four explains the study
design, sampling process, instruments, and data analysis. Chapter five and chapter six report
the results and findings of each current study’s research question. Each chapter presents a brief
research methodology used to address its aim before presenting its results and ends with a briefsummary. Chapter seven discusses results and findings from each research question
respectively and draws a conclusion and final remarks for implications in Chapter eight.

30

Chapter 2: CAMBODIA’S EDUCATION AND PRIVATE TUTORING
This chapter presents a brief overview of Cambodia’s general education system and PT in
particular to understand its opportunities and challenges toward the research topic. This chapter
starts with historical development in Cambodia’s education by presenting an overview of thegeneral goal, followed by a specific education level. Moreover, it shows particular syllabus
patterns, especially differences in the learning tracks, followed by examination systems and
PT. Additionally, this chapter highlights the efforts made by the MoEYS and RGC toward
improving equality in education.

2.1 Overview of Cambodia’s education
Before presenting the current education system, the section presents a brief historicaldevelopment of the country and its education system to elucidate some perspectives which may
influence its later educational implications.

2.1.1. Brief historical development
Cambodia has a long history since it was known as a Khmer Empire in the 19th century. Fromthe mid-19th century to 1953, Cambodia was a French colony. During colonization,
Cambodia’s education could only operate inside Buddhist pagodas. This only could educate
some Cambodian males who became Buddhist monks rather than the other males and theirfemale population. Cambodia obtained independence from France in 1953 under the leadershipof King Norodom Sihanouk; a formal education system was then installed for the nation. About
two decades after the independence, Cambodia’s education system was remarkably improved
as the king’s ambitious plans to build many schools and universities for human resource
development. No later than 1970, King Sihanouk was overthrown through the coup d’état led
by General Lon Nol. However, Lon Nol’s success could last only about five years before Pol

31

Pot took power from April 1975 until January 1979. This period was known as the genocide
regime. Cambodia’s education system was stopped during this regime. About two million
people out of about seven million people were killed, including the most educated people andskilled laborers. With support from Vietnam and the former Soviet Union, the People’s
Republic of Kampuchea defeated the genocide regime in 1979. Nevertheless, Cambodia wasin the civil war until the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement Accords, which led to the free national
election in 1993 organized by the United Nations. The election resulted in two Prime Ministers– Prince Norodom Ranariddh from the FUNCINPEC party and Hun Sen from Cambodia
People’s Party (CPP). Later, Hun Sen won the majority of the seats in Cambodia’s parliamentand assumed the office of the Prime Minister, a position he still holds as of 2022. However,scholars noted the changing trend in education, which led to the current education reform in
2014, was immediately launched after CPP experienced a considerable loss of seats at thenational parliamentary in the 2013 national election1 as gaining back the youth’s votes was
identified as crucial political strategies for CPP (Bredenberg, 2020; Kampuchea Action to
Promote Education [KAPE], 2014; Maeda, 2019). However, Cambodia’s education has been
through some other reforms, as briefly described below, before reaching this current one.

Cambodia’s general education aims to fully develop all talents and capacities so that they growand develop intellectually, spiritually, mentally, and physically (MoEYS, 2004, 2006).
According to Articles 65–68 of Cambodia’s constitution law and Article 31 of its Educationallaw, the RGC attempts to provide all citizens with free education and ensure equality in
education accessibility and quality as well as freedom of education, including the teaching oftechnology and foreign languages (RGC, 2004, 2007). The current Cambodian education
system has been through two reforms. So as to reinstall human resources for the nation after

1

according to the media reports (see BBC News, 2013; Hunt, 2013; Kung, 2013)32

the collapse of the Pol Pot regime, from 1980 to 1987, during the People’s Republic of
Kampuchea, Cambodia operated its education system based on a “4+3+3” formulation. Its firstreform was launched in the academic year 1987–1988. Cambodia operated its general
education based on a “5+3+3” configuration. Its second education reform was in the academic
year 1996–1997. Cambodia formulated its general education system based on a “6+3+3”
configuration (Appendix 3). This refers to the fact that Cambodian students are required to take12 years to complete its general education certificate while the first nine years are comprisedof a “6+3” system, known as Basic Education level.

2.1.2 Basic education
This level is a compulsory education according to Cambodia’s constitution law. The basic
education level comprises three cycles, enabling students to achieve the academic andextracurricular targets to further their studies at the upper grades, participate in other vocational
training, or participate in social life. Two cycles of which are in primary school and another inlower secondary school. Students at the age of six can enroll in primary school.

The first cycle is at primary school, starting from Grade 1 to 3, aiming to ensure that every
child has a strong foundation in literacy and numeracy and that they develop their health,physical appearance, moral understanding, learning skills, and life skills. Similarly, the second
cycle covers Grade 4 until 6, aimed at expanding and consolidating students’ knowledge andunderstanding of Khmer language, mathematics, learning skills, life skills, moral, and personal
development that will enable them to pursue life-long learning and introduce students tocontent in the areas of science and social studies. In addition, the third cycle is a lower
secondary school (Grades 7 – 9). This cycle curriculum is to provide all students with a breadthof knowledge, skills, Khmer language, mathematics, sciences, social studies, life skills,

33

learning skills, vocational education, moral education, and personal development necessary toenable them to contribute as productive members to the growth of the Cambodian society andcontinue higher studies, participate in other vocational training or to participate in social life
(MoEYS, 2004, pp. 9–10). By the end of Grade 9, students take a leaving examination tocontinue to the upper secondary school. Students are given an overall pass grade: A (Good), B(Fairly good), C (Average) or D (Failed). There are 10 core examination subjects: Khmer
language, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, earth andenvironmental studies, moral-civics, and selective foreign language (English or French). The
national curriculum is taught for 38 weeks per academic year. Students are scheduled to study
five days a week and five study hours per day at primary school, whereas six days a week andfour to seven study hours per day at lower secondary school (MoEYS, 2016b). Table 2.1
illustrates the study subjects and hours of each cycle (MoEYS, 2004, 2006).
Table 2.1: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Basic Education

No

Subjects

Primary school

Lower sec. school

1st cycle

3rd cycle

2nd cycle
Grades

1-3

4

5-6

7-9

1

Khmer language

9

10

8

6

2

Mathematics

6

6

6

6

3

Science

3

4

6

4

Social studies

4

5

6

4

Physical education and sport 2

2

2

2

5

Foreign languages--*** (a)4

Total national curriculum

25

25

25

30

2-5

2-5

2-5

2-5

27-30

27-30

27-30

32-35

5

Local life skills program (b)Total weekly hours
Note:

3

(a)

It operates according to the possibilities in terms of means and the human resources of eachschool at the primary level.
(b)
A supplement program developed by the school in partnership with parents, local
communities, community organizations, and non-government organizations.

34

2.1.3 Secondary education
The last stage in Cambodia’s general education system is an upper secondary school that spans
three years (Grades 10 – 12). The national curriculum divides this stage into two levels. The
first level (Grade 10) aims to expand and consolidate students’ knowledge obtained from lower
secondary education; to ensure the provision of significant learning track advice for students
to study in Grades 11 and 12 (MoEYS, 2004, p. 11). To ensure better preparation for learning
tracks, students take 12 study subjects, and accumulated 32 hours per week as indicated inTable 2.2 (MoEYS, 2010b). During the second semester of each academic year, students start
to select the learning track for their second level of upper secondary school. They can choose
either science or social science track according to their preference or academic achievement.
Table 2.2: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Grade 10
No.

Subjects

Number of instructional hours

1

Khmer composition

62

Mathematics

63

Languages (English/French)

44Physical education and sport

2

5

Physics2

6Chemistry

1.5*

7

Biology

1.5*

8

Earth environmental studies

1

9

History

1.5*

10

Geography

1.5*

11

Moral-Civics

1.5*

12

Home economics

1.5*

13

Elective vocational education program(a)2Total weekly hours
Note:

32

*

It can be arranged according to the possibilities of each school
Subject can be offered such as ICT/Technology, Accounting/Business Management, Local
Vocational/Technical subjects, Tourism or Art education; it depends on students’ choice,teacher, and resource availability.
(a)35Offering learning tracks aims to develop strong competence in science and mathematics at the
final stage of general education and provide a clear pathway for students to select majors inhigher education (MoEYS, 2010b). Although this guideline requires students to continue with
their selected track, students are allowed to switch their track if they wish to, with approval
from their school principal.
Table 2.3: Distribution of subjects and instructional hours for Grades 11 and 12
No

Instructional hours for Grades 11-12

Subjects

Science track

Social science track

Compulsory
1

Khmer composition

3

5

2

Mathematics

5

3

3

Languages (English/French)

2

2

4

Physical education and sport

1

1

Electives
5

Physics32

6Chemistry3

2

7

Biology3

2

8

Earth environmental studies

2

2

9

History2

3

10

Geography

2

3

11

Moral-Civics

2

3

12

Economics

2

2

13

Elective vocational education program*

2

2

32

32

Total weekly hours
Note:

*

Subject can be offered such as ICT/Technology, Accounting/Business Management, Local
Vocational/Technical subjects, Tourism or Art education; it depends on students’ choice,teacher, and resource availability.

The second level (Grades 11-12) aims to provide students with the opportunity for increased
specialization through learning track to develop a depth of knowledge in particular subjects or
to take training-based vocational subjects to continue higher education, study vocational

36

subjects, or participate in social life (MoEYS, 2004, p. 12). Students are required to follow oneof the learning tracks–science or social science, and their subjects are divided into compulsory
and elective. However, some subjects' study hours per week differ based on their track, as seenin Table 2.3 (MoEYS, 2004, 2006, 2010b).

Although Cambodia attempts to offer free education and to enhance equality of education as a
response to its constitution law and education law (see RGC, 2004, 2007), results of thenationwide survey conducted by the CSES of the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) foundthat each household’s expenses in education kept increasing every year regardless of educationlevel. The higher level of education their children participated in, the higher expenses eachhousehold spent. The expenses raised about double or even more when moving to one higher
level, as indicated in Figure 2.1. Although the detailed items of the expenses were not listed insome of the CSES reports, it could be understood from the available ones that alongside schoolsupplies and fees, the expenses included PT fees and costs of gifts for schoolteachers, which
MoEYS attempted to abolish since the mid-1990s.
Figure 2.1: Average annual expenses in education per household
600

in US Dollars

500
400
300
200
100
0

2004

2007

2008

2009

2010

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2019/20

Primary

10.71

14.79

18.50

25.85

34.89

67.69

84.92

77.77

108.17115.31

126.65159.06

Lower

45.81

44.87

62.16

66.92

96.54

140.34184.74165.70215.35224.21236.76279.03Upper

105.32103.30128.26159.20176.35252.91

312.62300.68373.92418.85426.85555.12Created by author
Source: National Institute of Statistics (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020)
Note: converted from Khmer riels to US dollars by using an exchange rate of world bank (2022)

37

2.2

Examination system

2.2.1 Impetus
During schooling, Cambodian students have to take two types of assessment: school-based andnational (baccalaureate) examinations. To move to the next grade within the education level(i.e., basic education and secondary education), students must gain at least the average scoresin their annual school-based achievement. Their annual achievement is an accumulation of theresults of monthly tests and two semester examinations. These school-based assessments areprepared, administered, and marked by the (subject) schoolteachers.

Cambodia used to have the leaving examination at the senior grade (Grade 6) in the primaryeducation level until 1997. This examination was removed in 1997, aiming to increase thepromotion rate toward lower secondary education levels as responding to the Education For
All (EFA) goals. For the senior grade of basic education (Grade 9) and upper secondary school(Grade 12), students are called to sit for the national examination to achieve a basic and general
education certificate accordingly. Not until 2014 did the examination of basic education level
become the national standardized one. Its examination was prepared and administered by the
MoEYS and invigilated and marked by schoolteachers from other schools in the same province
under the supervision of the POE in collaboration with MoEYS (MoEYS, 2010c, 2019e). As
stated in 2014, MoEYS delegated the Grade 9 leaving examination to the individual schools.
This practice could assist MoEYS in saving around half of the administration costs, which
could contribute toward the MoEYS’ efforts to raise teachers’ salaries (Barron, 2014;
Bredenberg, 2022; MoEYS, 2015b, 2019d, 2019f; Naren & Blomberg, 2014).

Regarding the Grade-12 baccalaureate examination, students are required to take an
examination of six compulsory subjects and one elective subject which is based on the lucky38

draw following the examination reform in the academic year 2013–2014. The compulsory
subjects for science track students are mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, Khmer
composition, foreign language (English/French), and one elective subject. Whereas students insocial science track take examinations of Khmer composition, history, moral-civics,
geography, mathematics, foreign language (English/French), and one elective subject. Students
are given an overall pass grade such as A (Excellence), B (Very good), C (Good), D (Fairlygood), or E (Average) (MoEYS, 2014b, 2019d).
Table 2.4: Comparison of scores by exam subjects before and after the 2014 reform
Examination subjects

Science track

Social Science track

2010–20132014–Present

2010–20132014–Present

Khmer composition

75

75

125

125

Mathematics

125

125

75

75

Physics

75

75

50

-

Chemistry

75

75

50

-

Biology

75

75

50

-

Earth-environmental study

50

-

50

-

History

50

-

75

75

Geography

50

-

75

75

Moral-Civics

50

-

75

75

Language (English/French)

50

50

50

50

Subject based on lucky draw2

-

50

-

50

Created by author
Source: MoEYS (2013, 2019c)

Notably, students were examined on the same subjects prior to the examination reform,
particularly between 2010 and 2013, regardless of their learning track (MoEYS, 2014b).
However, maximum scores were given differently to subjects that were central foci of theirtrack. Similarly, the maximum scores for compulsory subjects such as mathematics and the2

MoEYS releases the name of subject at least 45 days prior to the examination date.

39

Khmer composition differ following the examination reform (Table 2.4). The different weightof the subject in Grade 12 baccalaureate examination as well as the removal of examination
subjects by learning track may raise some concerns related to students’ focus on both insideand outside-school learning activities.

2.2.2 Consequences
The changes in the leaving examinations have been both criticized and appreciated by scholars
and media reports. Dawson (2009) criticized that the removal of the Grade-6 leaving
examination expanded the PT market among schoolteachers and their own students because
the former were given authority that could impact the (passed/failed) end-year result of theirstudents. Additionally, this PT expansion was likely to harm education quality in Cambodia (p.
62). Furthermore, albeit students are required to obtain at least an annual average score in theirschool-based achievement to move to the next grade, Dawson criticized that almost all (about90%) primary students were promoted regardless of their performance as MoEYS pressured
schools toward EFA goals (p. 60). Dawson (Dawson, 2010, 2011) also pointed out that PT
expansion had a strong association with unprofessionalism or corruption of both schoolteachersand school-related authorities. However, Brehm and Silova (2014, p. 109) unveiled that
Cambodia’s education quality at public schools was less likely to achieve without support fromPT.

Similarly, Naren and Blomberg (2014) reported that delegating Grade-9 leaving examination
spawns more teachers’ unprofessionalism at public schools, resulting in students being called
to invest more in PT while MoEYS could save on its budget. However, Bredenberg (2022, p.
70) viewed this delegation not only could reduce teachers’ possibility to offer PT but alsooffered schoolteachers, particularly at lower secondary education levels, more flexibility in40their teaching. The Grade-9 leaving examination is recently like a school-based assessment,
although staff from POE and District Office of Education (DOE) inspect during theexamination. Since then, the pass rates of Grade 9 candidates reached approximately 90%(Brehm, 2015, p. 107; MoEYS, 2017, p. 43).

Noteworthily, the current examination system results from the 2014 education reform, which
aimed to reinstall trust in public education after this system, including corruption inbaccalaureate examination, has been criticized. Examination reform scheduled to kick off in2014 is one of the eight education reform agendas under the leadership of the new Minister,Hang Chuon Narong, appointed in 2013 (see MoEYS, 2015b). This examination aimed toeliminate all types of corruption in examinations, and to ensure fairness and justice as stated in
Article 26 of Cambodia’s education law “… Examination shall be conducted with fairness andjustice. The stan in the examination and cheating in all images are prohibited.” (MoEYS,
2019d, art. 1; Royal Goverment of Cambodia [RGC], 2007). To ensure its effectiveness, anticorruption laws were integrated in this examination reform, and staff from the anti-corruption
unit inspected the examination process (see MoEYS, 2014c, 2016c). Chhinh et al. (2015)
viewed it as the RGC’s efforts toward eliminating unprofessional practices of both candidates
and proctors (e.g., cheating and leakage of the test papers).

Regarding the Grade-12 baccalaureate examination, the impetus of examination in 2014brought a sharp decline in rates of successful Grade-12 candidates as it was in the mid-1990s.
As evidence of this, in the academic year 1993-1994, Cambodia’s MoEYS strengthened

41fairness and justice in the examination of all education levels (Grades 5, 8, and 11)3 to eliminate
all types of corruption. Only could 4.05% out of 17,000 candidates at upper secondary schooland 13% of over 50,000 at lower secondary school pass the examination (Francis, 1994).
Similarly, during the academic year 2013-2014, the pass rates of registered Grade-12
candidates sharply declined from approximately 87% in 2013 to 40.7%4 in 2014 (Koyanagi,
2017; Radio Free Asia, 2014; Robertson, 2014). However, the pass rates gradually increased
in sequential years, as presented in Table 2.5 below. Since 2014, the passed/failed result of
Grade-12 candidates is based on only how well they performed in the tests during the two-day
baccalaureate examination because their annual achievements obtained from the school-based
assessments were not added to the sum scores of the baccalaureate examination as it was done
from 2008 to 2013. However, this annual average achievement is only used to ensure students’eligibility for Grade-12 baccalaureate examination. They are required to earn at least averagescore points resulting of monthly tests and two semester examinations (MoEYS, 2013, 2014b).
The massive decrease in passing rates in 2014 indicated students’ poor preparation forbaccalaureate examinations and questionable quality of teaching and learning at the publicschool, including the ineffectiveness of PT classes (Bredenberg, 2022). Conversely, thesubsequent increase in passing rates may illustrate the better performance of both public school
and PT classes. Furthermore, MoEYS (2018) reported that this 2014 examination systemsignaled positive behavior changes in both students’ learning and teachers’ teaching
performance in public schools. However, Asian Foundation’s report indicated that improving

3

These grades are now known as Grades 6, 9, and 12. During that time, Cambodia’s education was based on a

“5+3+3” configuration.
4

It is total passing rates of both chances of the examinations. Since more than 70% of the total 89,937 registeredcandidates failed the 2014 Grade-12 baccalaureate examination (only 23,126 candidates accounted for 25.72%
passed), Prime Minister Hun Sen requested MoEYS to offer a second chance to the unsuccessful candidates,
resulting 10,871 candidates (about 18%) passing (see RFA, 2014; Robertson, 2014).

42

the quality of education and increasing teachers’ salaries were in need, although about 96% of
its survey samples agreed with that effectiveness (Everett & Kaing, 2014). Since 2014, media
reports have consistently published about the positive changes in teachers' and students’behavior, particularly during examination (see Koyanagi, 2017; The Guardian, 2014; VOA,
2015). However, very few empirical studies have evidenced this.

Table 2.5: Passing rates of Grade 12 students from 2013 to 2021
Exam year
Total
candidates
Pass rate2013

2014(a)

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020(b)2021

108,288 89,937 83,325 91,051 99,728 115,268 117,043 121,108 114,187
86.8%

41.7%

55.9%

62.2%

63.8%

66.2%

68.6%

100%

66.7%

Note: (a) the year started the current examination system.
(b)

all registered candidates were given the same pass grade due to school closure following thePandemic.

Source: MoEYS (2014a, 2015a, 2016a, 2017a, 2018a, 2019a, 2021); Premium Time (2020)

2.3 Private tutoring in Cambodia
2.3.1 Incidence and consequences
Although it cannot be precisely dated, Bray et al. (2015) stated that PT existed as the start ofschooling. However, PT in Cambodia was seen in the literature in the 1990s following Bray’s(1999) study. After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, fee-paid tuition or PT (called [rienkuor] in the native language, Khmer) emerged in Cambodia’s public schools in the early 1990s
as was noted in other countries which followed the same socialist model. Cambodian publicschoolteachers functioned as private tutors and offered PT inside the public school building to
supplement family income (Bray, 1999b; Brehm & Silova, 2014b). Recently, Brehm (2021)
divided PT in Cambodia into five types: regular PT, special PT, PT during holiday, PT at
private school and online PT.

43Cambodia’s commitment toward the EFA goals seemed to contribute toward private tutoring
expansion in Cambodia. Dawson (2009) criticized that PT was likely to harm EFA and theeducation quality in Cambodia. In the same line, Brehm and Silova (2014) revealed that lackof qualified teachers during a rapid increase of school number was seen as one of the main
issues which shrank the education quality. To deal with this issue, schools employed a doubleshift program and increased class size. Schoolteachers had to be responsible for multi grades
and students could have only a half-day schedule. The half-day schedule could affect theamount of instructional time (MoEYS, 2010a). Brehm and Silova (2014, p. 109), additionally,
showed that the education quality at public schools is not likely to realize without the support
from PT. During public school hours, schoolteachers aimed to complete the national
curriculum, albeit they realized that their students could not understand it properly (Soeung,2021a). Teachers rushed to complete their daily plan by giving students fewer examples orpractical exercises of the prescribed knowledge and skills. As a result, students cannot masterskills unless they undertake PT. Additionally, parents felt that their children would be punishedor repeated their grade unless they took PT classes with the schoolteachers who were
responsible for them at the public school (Bray, 1999b, 2013). Therefore, parents and students
demanded PT as a complement to maximize their chances of boosting academic achievement
and succeeding in the examinations. Cambodian parents who were concerned about theirchildren’s learning and future viewed investing in PT as a necessity (Bray & Kwo, 2014), or akind of human capital investment, as stated by Heyneman (2011). By observing data from theCambodia Socio-Economic Survey (CSES) of the National Institute of Statistics between 2010
and 2020, Figure 2.2 indicates that the rate of students taking PT after school hours steadily
increases at every education level. The rate increases in lower secondary schools and evenhigher in upper secondary schools. Therefore, these factors present the need for PT among
Cambodian students at all education levels.

44

Besides the concern of the effects on the quality of education at the public schools, empiricalevidence (see Dang & Rogers, 2008; Dang, 2013; Kwok, 2010) on PT proves the effects onsocial inequality and inequity due to the differences of socio-economic status (SES) and placeof origin/geographical areas. Students from well-to-do families can learn formal subjects
effectively through different forms of PT compared to their underprivileged counterparts (Bray,2009). PT obtained higher demand in urban areas than in rural areas due to a higher competitive
society and average income (Bray & Bunly, 2005). Similarly, students in urban areas had more
PT choices since there was higher availability of tutorial centers/schools (Brehm et al., 2012).

Figure 2.2: Students taking private tutoring after school hours, by school level
100%90%79.10%

80%
70%

66.90%

63.20%

69.80%

67.70%

72.40%

60%
50%

53%

48.20%

47.20%

56.50%

74.70%

57%

46.90%

30%

10%

56.80%

41.10%

40%

20%

77%

13.30%

10.50%

13.50%

17.90%

13.60%

20.10%

19.10%

23.60%

0%2010
Primary

2012

2013
Lower Secondary

2014

2015
Upper Secondary

2016

2017

2019/2020

Linear (Upper Secondary)

Created by author
Source: National Institute of Statistics (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020)

General findings from the literature on PT studies show that teachers’ low salaries and highstakes examinations impact teachers’ and students' engagement of PT, respectively. Moreover,
low expenditure on education of RGC contributed to schoolteachers’ engagement of PT.

45

Cambodia’s government expenditure on education exhibited an overall notable gain from
1.26% to 2.16% of GDP5 in 1998 and 2018, respectively, as shown in Figure 2.2. Despite thisgain, it is below UNESCO’s World Education Forum, suggesting 6% of GDP, resulting in a
low rank of 10th among ASEAN and 46th among Asian countries (UNESCO, 2020; World
Bank, 2020a) (Appendix 4).

Figure 2.3: Government expenditures (% of GDP) on education in total
2.50
2.16
2.05

2.00

In percent

1.72
1.50

1.72

1.66

1.71

2000

2002

1.67

1.60

1.91
1.51

1.56

1.53

1.26
1.00

0.50

0.00
1998

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Source: World Bank (2020a)

2.3.2 Different stakeholders’ engagement in private tutoring
Generally, Heyneman (2009, p. 3) and Bray (2003, p. 27) viewed supplying PT to their own
students and the ways schoolteachers abuse their authority to create PT demand among theirstudents as schoolteacher professional misconduct or corruption in education. Schoolteacher
professionalism has become a key concern regarding the opportunity to offer PT to theirstudents for additional income. Over decades, studies and media in Cambodia have reported
5

Cambodia’s annual GDP was approximately 3,130 million USD in 1998 and 24,599 million USD in 2018

(Country Economy, 2020)46

the association between PT and schoolteachers' unprofessionalism due to overloaded syllabi,
low salaries, and high-stakes examinations (Bray, 1999b, 2013; Bray et al., 2015, 2016, 2018;
Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014; Dawson, 2009; Koyanagi, 2017; Naren &Blomberg, 2014). Beyond discussing the positive or negative effects, this study viewed PT as
a social phenomenon from the lenses of various stakeholders, such as education providers,
students and parents, and society.

From education providers, studies have reported that not only schoolteachers but also school
principals and higher-lever officials engaged in the PT phenomenon in Cambodia. These could
be reflected from two lenses: classroom learning and school leadership. First, in classroom
learning, schoolteachers were reported to split the formal syllabus by withholding somecontents, slowing down their teaching, and offering brief explanations with fewer practical
exercises at the public school for their supplementary income from tutoring classes (see Brehm& Silova, 2014a, 2014b; Soeung, 2021). In addition, some schoolteachers favor their own
tutored students by allowing them to cheat during the examination, giving them better grades,
embarrassing non-tutored students, and emphasizing some test items in advance during thetutoring classes (Bray et al., 2015, 2019; Dawson, 2009). They also levied a daily fee for PT
during public school, although some students may not require PT. Second, researchers foundthat schoolteachers' PT also resulted from the hierarchical corruption and poor schoolleadership of school principals (Bredenberg, 2022; Brehm, 2021; Dawson, 2010, 2011). Thiswas similar to what Biswal (1999) found across developing countries: a lack of school
accountability and monitoring system from relevant authorities or stakeholders. Dawson (2010,2011) revealed that a percentage of the fee earned by schoolteachers was given to school
administrative staff, including higher-level officials (e.g., DOE and POE staff). He viewed theengagement of different actors as a political “web of corruption” which continue to affect47

education quality (2010, p. 20); it also leads some school principals to ignore the unprofessional
practices of their schoolteachers (Bredenberg, 2022). Therefore, these practices of education
providers put students whose families could not afford either time or money for PT at a
disadvantage (see Brehm et al., 2012).

From the students' and families’ side, PT increases the household’s financial burden, social
inequality and reduces families’ opportunity costs (Bray & Bunly, 2005; Brehm & Silova,
2014b; Edwards et al., 2020). The cost of PT varies across areas and subjects. For example, itcost between 100 and 300 riels as reported (approximately 0.024USD and 0.073USD) in Bray’s(1999b) study among primary school pupils, but it went up to 500 riels in average(approximately 0.12USD) for one tutoring hour among lower and upper secondary school in
Siem Riep (Bray et al., 2016). Furthermore, the cost for subjects such as mathematics andphysics was 500 riels (approximately 0.12USD) in urban areas, and about 300 or 400 riels(approximately 0.073USD or 0.098USD) in rural areas while costs for other subjects werelower. On average, each urban household paid approximately three times higher for PT per
child than their rural peers in the same grade between Grades 7-9 (Bray & Bunly, 2005, pp.
42–43). Since previous studies have not yet reported the expenses in PT nationally, we
calculated using the CSES microdata obtained from NIS to observe the average private tuition6
expenses per household between 2008 and 2015. As exhibited in Figure 2.4, the expenses
steadily increased starting from 2010; its fast growth could be noted in the following year (i.e.,2013). This could present the increase of PT among Cambodian household on the one hand
and the economy on another. The growth of economy can be marked as the increase of the
middle-class population. The middle-class and well-off household demanded better education
for their children (Hanushek & Wößmann, 2007; Khiev & Ty, 2011). For example, 5.50% of

6This tuition expense is included not only PT for academic subjects but also non-academic ones.

48

students enrolled in private upper secondary schools, while 23.51% of total urban students
registered in private schools nationwide (MoEYS, 2019g, 2019h). As evidence, Cambodia’s
gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from 2010 to 2019 at an annual average of 7.7%
(World Bank, 2019). This growth marked a reduction in poverty rates from 47.8% in 2007 to
13.5% in 2014. With these GDP trends, Cambodia is optimistic about achieving its national
goals of 2030 and 20507 as expected (MoEYS, 2019c).
Figure 2.4: Average private tuition expenses per household
80
70
68.0

in US Dollars

60
50

51.2

40
37.1

30
20

24.9

25.5

25.1

2010

2011

29.6

16.9

10
2008

2009

2012

2013

2014

2015

Created by author
Source: National Institute of Statistics (2008 – 2015)
Note: Converted from Khmer riels to US dollars by using a yearly exchange rate of the World Bank
(2022)

2.3.3 Responses toward private tutoring
RGC and MoEYS have paid attention to the fast growth of PT as responses to the criticism ofscholars, media reports, and society on teachers’ unprofessionalism in terms of PT engagement

7

To develop itself into an upper-middle-income country by 2030 and high-income country by 2050 (RGC, 2015).

With an alignment to these goals as well as the Rectangular Strategy Phase III (2014-2018) and IV (2019-2023),
MoEYS developed a Cambodia’s Sustainable development Goal 4-Education 2030 Roadmap to envision forrealization of the 2030 and 2050 national goals through aiming “to ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote life-long learning opportunities for all” (MoEYS, 2019b, p. 16).

49

for their supplementary income (e.g., Bray, 2013b; Bray et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Brehm &Silova, 2014; Dawson, 2009; Maeda, 2019; Naren & Blomberg, 2014; Soeung, 2021).
Cambodia attempted to abolish school registration fees and all types of students’ informal
payment since the mid-1990s by implementing a series of programs; nevertheless, PT remains
unregulated in the Cambodian context (see Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014; Dawson,2009). Hence, the question to be posed is whether those programs were serving their purpose
effectively.

RGC amended some articles8 (i.e., 13, 17, 25, and 27) of the Ethics Codes for the Teaching
Profession in 2008 to respond to schoolteachers’ unprofessionalism and labeled PT unethical.
This amendment addresses prohibiting schoolteachers’ private gains during public school
hours and coercing students to opt for PT (RGC, 2008). This amendment is linked to“discouragement” (Bray & Kwo, 2014). However, studies reported that schoolteachers
engaged in PT and oppressed their own students into undertaking PT (see Bray, 2013; Bray &Bunly, 2005; Dawson, 2009).
Additionally, Cambodia has been committing its best to respond to teachers’ low salaries andto strengthen its education system, yet the quality education at public schools still relies on PT(Brehm et al., 2012). Basic salaries of newly recruited schoolteachers at upper secondary
schools teachers have been, so far, increased from 586,500 Cambodian riels (KHR)

8

Article 13: Teacher shall not raise the money or collect informal fees or run any business inside the class.
Teachers shall avoid doing other jobs in the education institution.
Article 17: […] Teacher have duty to teach without putting pressure on students which aims to exploit them.
Article 25: Teachers of public institution have rights to teach for private purposes (it shall be out of their official
time).
Article 27: Teachers in public and private education institution shall not use their roles to force students tostudy with them or other teachers.

50

(approximately 145 US dollars) in 2016 to 862,500 KHR (approximately 211 US dollars9) in2020 (RGC, 2015b, 2019). Nevertheless, teachers claimed they could not meet the family's
needs due to the simultaneous increase in living costs (Dawson, 2009; Khy, 2019). Along thesame line, Cambodia’s MoEYS launched the Priority Action Program (PAP) in 2001 to
implement a free education policy by abolishing school registration fees and all types of
informal payment, including purchasing test papers, learning handouts, teachers’ gifts, andpaying a daily fee as well as tutoring lesson (Bray & Bunly, 2005; Brehm & Silova, 2014;
Dawson, 2010). Keng (2009) reported that this PAP boosted enrolment rates and further
empowered the schools. However, it failed to improve the education quality. Therefore,teachers extort supplementary income from students through tutoring classes. To possibly
support their daily family needs, schoolteachers ‘blackmail’ their students for PT (see Bray,
1999, 2013; Dawson, 2009). In addition, PT has become necessary for students to ensure theiracademic success and effectively learn the entire public school syllabus (Bray & Kwo, 2014;
Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b).

2.4 Chapter Summary
Cambodia has no specific policy for schoolteachers’ PT engagement, albeit MoEYS has
attempted to do so since the mid-1990s. Previous empirical studies indicated that a large
proportion of Cambodian students in primary and secondary education undertook PT (Bray etal., 2018; Bray, et al., 2015; Bray & Bunly, 2005; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Soeung, 2021). For
example, Bray et al. (2018, p. 441) reported that approximately 75% and 83% of their samplesof Grades 9 and 12, respectively, took PT and more than 70% of students in upper secondary
school nationwide between 2015 and 2020 did same according to the survey results of the
National Institute of Statistics (see Figure 2.1). Through the different phases of the education

9

Exchange rate in 2016 was 1USD = 4058.695KHM, and 4092.783KHM in 2020 (World Bank, 2022)

51

reform since the early 1990s, MoEYS has attempted to reinstall trustworthiness of stakeholders
and society in the public education. MoEYS could attracted more attention to and trust in public
education after implementing the 2014 education reform agenda, particularly promoting theequitable opportunity through anti-cheating examination policy. Noticeably, within the current
examination system, Cambodian students sit for only one national standardized leaving(baccalaureate) examination to complete the entire general education system. Additionally,
examination subjects were curtailed from 10 to only six at the Grade-12 baccalaureate
examination. The subjects are also separated into three compulsory, three elective (according
to students’ learning track) and one lucky-draw subject. The current education reform has
succeeded in clearing the corruption in Grade 12 baccalaureate examination, increasing
schoolteacher salaries and some others (see Bredenberg, 2022). Specifically, it has improved
the pass rate of Grade 12 students in the baccalaureate examination since 2015. The high rateof students who failed in 2014 indicated the low quality of teaching and learning at publicschools and the ineffectiveness of PT classes (p. 70). However, the steady increase in passing
rates is likely to signal better teaching and learning quality improvement. Similarly, MoEYS(2018b) reported the positive behavior change in schoolteachers’ teaching and students’learning following the reform. However, no empirical evidence has proved these changes ineither public school or tutoring classes. These evidences are needed to provide thepolicymakers with more evidences to address the issues effectively and on time. Additionally,
PT remains in need for both schoolteachers and students according to the national survey andsome empirical studies, although RGC and MoEYS aimed to stop it in the mid-1990s thoughimplementing some actions and employed a “discouragement” scenario of PT.

52

Chapter 3: LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter aims to provides an overview of private tutoring and discussion of patterns, factors
and relevant stakeholders’ perceptions of private tutoring that pervious empirical studies arearguing in different contexts. The chapter starts with brief concepts of private tutoring and its
nature including how and why private tutoring happened.

3.1 Nature of private tutoring“Private [supplementary] tutoring” is not a new phenomenon in the field of education; it has
been used worldwide (Bray, 2017). Although its origin cannot be traced back, Bray et al. (2015,p. 6) assumed that PT might have appeared since the start of the schooling system.
Additionally, PT is metaphorically known as “shadow education” as it cannot stand alone but
depends on the mainstream system (Bray & Lykins, 2012; Bray, 1999b; Lee et al., 2009). The
term has evolved globally and been defined based on the contexts or purposes in which it wasused. PT meant tutoring in academic subjects, which schoolteachers offered for supplementary
income (Bray & Kwok, 2003; Bray & Lykins, 2012). Furthermore, the U.S. Department of
Education (1987 as cited in Mori and Baker (2010, p. 37)) referred to it as a “secret ingredient”
to assist students in performing better in the tests or examinations in some Asian nations,especially in countries that are strongly influenced from the Confucianism (Li & Choi, 2014).
However, Dawson (2010, p. 15) used the term “parasitic” system to define the PT, which is akind of system that absorbs unmet demand for schooling. In the Cambodian context, Brehm etal. (2012, p. 15) described the situation of public education as a “public-private hybrid
education system” because students were required to pay for both systems to complete thepublic school curriculum successfully.

53

PT has been hallmarked as a part of education globally (Bray, 1999b; Mori & Baker, 2010). It
serves as learning activities outside school aiming to support students’ learning during theofficial hours; it positively contributes to improving students’ academic achievement (Mori &Baker, 2010; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). To some extent, schoolteachers tend to benefit fromthese positive viewpoints of PT to boost their PT market. With a supply and demand process,Bray (1999b) explained two ways of producing PT. First, schoolteachers made the PT market
as compulsory as possible for students, regardless of whether they required it. This was because
schoolteachers were given full authority to decide whom to move to the next grade and whoshould repeat a grade. This fact could describe not only in primary school but also beyond(Soeung, 2021b). This generates a “supply creates demand” cycle in some settings (e.g.,
Cyprus, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Cambodia) where schoolteachers could offer PT to theirown students. Studies (i.e., Bray, 1999b, 2013; Bray et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Brehm et al.,2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014; Dawson, 2009), on the one hand, uncovered that schoolteachers
withhold some contents or slow down their teaching during official hours as so to promote their
PT classes. They abused their role to force their students and recommend parents directly or
indirectly to invest in PT with them and favor tutees. Therefore, students who are (not) in needof PT decided to opt for PT with their schoolteachers. Parents perceived that paying for PT isa great way to avoid unwanted consequences (e.g., repeating a grade) in children, which may
cost even more than PT (Bray, 1999b, 2013; Bray & Bunly, 2005). Additionally, students andparents humbly accepted that PT could help add more instructional times for precise
explanation and help schoolteachers teach a subject properly (Brehm & Silova, 2014b).
Similarly, schoolteachers perceived that offering PT could

compensate for insufficient

instructional time during official hours (e.g., Brehm & Silova, 2014; Hallsén & Karlsson, 2019)and help students learn better and practice more exercises (Bray et al., 2018). In addition, some54

schoolteachers reported that they decided to engage in PT as requested by parents and students(Dawson, 2009).

Second, schoolteachers create different types of PT (e.g., one-to-one or special PT) to target
different markets, especially for students who may be in need, can afford better learning
quality, and aim to maintain their good achievement. This type of market is not only forstudents for whom they are responsible during official hours but also for any consumers who
may demand (Bray, 1999b). The proportions of students who required PT of this type do notseem to be reported in the previous studies, particularly in the Cambodian context. The gap
may likely be large between rural and urban including Phnom Penh, due to the availability oftutorial centers, better income, and greater population as well as more competition (see Bray,
1999a; Bray & Bunly, 2005; Bray & Lykins, 2012; Brehm et al., 2012).

PT participation steadily raised in upper grades, particularly in the diploma-granting grades.
Also, schoolteachers seemed to be the main PT providers. Although official data on PT havenot been recorded nor can be easily accessed, Cambodia’s national survey (see Figure 2.2) andstudies revealed a steady increase in PT. As seen in Figure 3.1, the average rate of primaryschool students who took PT was 31.33% (Bray, 1999a, p. 59). The rates increased to around
53% on average in 2004 (Bray & Bunly, 2005, p. 41) and 71% in 2008 (Dawson, 2009, p. 59).
The rates were higher (about 73%) at lower secondary schools (Marshall & Fukao, 2019, p.
106); those rates increased when reaching diploma-granting grades, such as 74.7% and 89.8%
for grades 9 and 12, respectively (Bray et al., 2018, p. 7; Bray et al., 2015, p. 233). Regarding
the types of tutors, 47.5% of these diploma-granting grade samples reported opting for PT with
their own schoolteachers, followed by that of schoolteachers in the same school (33.7%) andschoolteachers from a different school (1.0%). Almost no student was tutored by a university

55

student or other self-employed people (Bray et al., 2015, p. 233). However, the rates of students
who were tutored by their own schoolteachers (57.7%) and schoolteachers in the same school(40.9%) relatively rose in the same context (Bray et al., 2018, p. 8).

Figure 3.1: Approximate rates of students taking private tutoring in Cambodia

89.80%
71%

73%

74.70%GRADE 8GRADE 953%
31.33%LATE 1990S

MID-2000S
Primary school

LATE 2000S

GRADE 122010S

Lower secondary school

Exam grades

Created by author
Sources: Bray (1999a), Bray and Bunly (2005), Bray et al. (2015, 2018), Marshall and Fukao (2019)

3.2 Factors related to education providers
The previous studies revealed various unprofessional practices that schoolteachers used topromote their PT services for financial gain. Those practices are closely linked to how
schoolteachers behave in classes, including how they teach and treat students during publicschooll and PT classes.

3.2.1 Pedagogical issues
Teaching pedagogies is one of the motives for PT. Schoolteachers distinguished teachingpedagogies between public school hours and tutoring to create PT demand among students
whom they were responsible for at the public school. In Cambodia, Bray et al. (2018) unveiled56

that schoolteachers applied so-called “caring pedagogy or pedagogy of care”10 during PT
classes while employing an uncaring one during official hours. About 82% of tutoredschoolteachers in their study reported they did not follow a prescribed teaching pedagogy (i.e.,
student-centered approach) but a teacher-centered one in their tutoring classes. Although astudent-centered approach can promote students’ active participation and self-directed learning(MoEYS, 2001), Song (2015) unveiled that Cambodian schoolteachers faced challenges in
implementing it due to mixed-ability classes, large class sizes, limited resources, and an
inflated syllabus. Additionally, this approach was criticized as being time-consuming in
Lithuania (Būdienė & Zabulionis, 2006) and ineffective in Thai public schools due to the large
class size (Jones & Rhein, 2018). Cambodian schoolteachers also expressed that a five-stepteaching pedagogy recommended by MoEYS took much time, and they could not complete
lessons as required by the syllabus (Dawson, 2009). Therefore, this prescribed teachingpedagogy, including a five-step teaching methodology, forced schoolteachers to exercise
hurried teaching to complete the intended syllabus during public school teaching whileproviding them the opportunity to showcase their knowledge and skills needed during PT
classes. Bray et al. (2018) also explained that schoolteacher absenteeism and insufficient
instructional time contributed to the overloaded curriculum syllabus and resulted in PT
engagement of both schoolteachers and students including their parents.

10

The authors explained the term ‘care’ in their study context as schoolteachers’ marketing strategy used topromote their tutoring service (p. 14), although the term was used to combine the traditional and progressive
views. The term was known as ‘ethic of care’, which is referred as a climate in which caring relationship between
carer (teacher) and cared-for (student) flourish and as a pedagogy used to assist students to achieve prescribedskills and knowledge. This caring is argued as the accountability of education systems and should be part of formal
curriculum (see: Noddings, 2005, pp.xiv-xv).

57

3.2.2 Schoolteachers’ malpractices or tricks
PT has an association with schoolteachers’ malpractices/tricks which were used to expand their
PT engagement due to schoolteachers’ low salaries and family SES (Bray et al., 2016; Dawson,
2009, 2010; Tandon & Fukao, 2015). Schoolteachers who relied on only government salaries
to support the family with two children lived in poverty, particularly in urban areas (Benveniste
et al., 2008, p. 52; Tandon & Fukao, 2015, p. 24). The inadequate salaries led to schoolteachers’
malpractices and PT engagement. These practices impact schoolteachers’ efforts in teaching inpublic school and develop a “culture of dependency” on PT for schoolteachers and students(Hammond, 2018). For instance, to meet family’s daily financial needs, schoolteachers forced
their own students to take PT and pay other informal fees, such as for purchasing handouts,
test papers or answer sheets; they also charged a sum for removing the number of absences andadjusting passing grades, alongside a daily fee. These malpractices were found not only in
Cambodia but also in Southeast Europe, Latin America, the former Soviet Union as well as in
China, Malaysia, and Vietnam (Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Dawson, 2009, 2010; Hallak &Poisson, 2007, 2008; Heyneman, 2009; Rumyantseva, 2005). Moreover, schoolteachers
boasted PT benefits and quality and forced students and parents directly or indirectly to invest
in PT through withholding some contents and slowing down their teaching during official hours(Bray, 1999b, 2013; Dawson, 2009). Schoolteachers gave much favor to their own tutees not
only in learning activities but also during the examinations by allowing them to cheat andgiving them greater scores, and making fun of non-tutees during class, as well as schoolteachersemphasized some parts of the tests in advance during PT classes (Bray et al., 2016, 2018, 2019;
Edwards et al., 2020; Maeda, 2019). Heyneman (2009, p. 3) pointed out these behaviors as
professional misconduct and considered it corruption in education.

58

3.2.3 Schoolteachers-related factors
Schoolteachers who lived closer to their public schools and who did not have additional jobs
engaged in PT more than their counterparts. Cambodian students at lower secondary schools
preferred to take PT with teachers with university qualifications and better knowledge ofsubject matters (Marshall & Fukao, 2019). Additionally, schoolteachers’ gender showed
differences in terms of the possibility of offering PT. Bray (1999a) reported that although PT
tended to steadily increase in the upper grades at urban Cambodian primary schools (i.e.,
Ratanakiri province), the rate was notedly low in the grade which was in charge by a female
schoolteacher. It was about 50% less than a lower grade which was taught by maleschoolteachers (p. 60). Female schoolteachers were less likely to offer PT than their malecounterparts; for they spent their time on family duties. Some of them thought they did nothave enough time to prepare lessons for PT classes, unlike some male schoolteachers whose
subjects were core examination subjects (e.g., mathematics), who were engaged in otherbusinesses which could gain more income than PT (Bray et al., 2018). Other factors such asteacher absenteeism, multishift teaching, and large class size were also associated with PT
engagement of both schoolteachers and students (Bray et al., 2016; Marshall & Fukao, 2019).

3.3 Students and parents
Students demand PT for different reasons, based on individual (e.g., gender and uphold
academic performance), parental (e.g., peer influence and parental pressure), and school factors(e.g., examinations) (Bray, 1999b).
3.3.1 Gender disparity
The pattern of gender disparity in demanding PT showed controversy in different contexts andtutoring subjects as well as types. The survey reports of CSES Cambodia’s NIS, as indicatedin Figure 2.2, illustrated that the rate of female and male students undertook PT after school

59

Figure 3.2: Rate of students taking private tutoring by gender
100%
90%
80%
70%

69.80%

60%

64.60%

77.70%

69.90%

76.40%

65.80%

59.60%

50%

50.30%

49.20%

40%

46.40%

44.80%

53.70%

30%
20%
10%

24.60%
22.80%

14.20%
14%
12.60%

13%

0%
2010

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2019/2020

Priamry Female

Priamry Male

Lower secondary Female

Lower secondary Male

Upper secondary Female

Upper secondary Male

Created by Author
Source: National Institute of Statistics (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020)

fluctuated between 2010 and 2020. However, the overall trend of females was higher in mostof the years in which data were collected. Female students were likely to spend more on PT
than their male peers in Cambodia (Bray et al., 2018), South Korea (Kim & Park, 2010; Kim& Lee, 2010), and Kuwait (Alazmi & Alazmi, 2020). In the same line, girls demanded English
PT more than their male counterparts in Bangladesh (e.g., Hamid et al., 2018; Mahmud & Bray,
2017; Mahmud & Kenayathulla, 2018) and Cambodia (Soeung, 2020). Females, additionally,significantly obtained mathematics PT more than their male peers in Eastern China (Zhang,2015). Similarly, females (65.4%) undertook one-to-one and small group tutoring in
Kyrgyzstan (Bagdasarova & Ivanov, 2009). However, males were more likely to take PT thanfemales at primary schools in Bangladesh (Nath, 2008), Taiwan (Liu, 2012), and Japan(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011, p. 128). However,
Stevenson and Baker (1992) showed no significant difference between females and males interms of PT investment in Japan. The pattern does not seem to be universal in terms of genderdisparity. These variations may link to cultural perspectives as well as social ones. For60example, parents may think that male students are more likely to require better quality ofeducation for paid employment. However, male students do not seem to be as focused as
females on their education (Bray et al., 2018, p. 9; Bray & Lykins, 2012, p. 12).

3.3.2 Location and family SES
Studies have confirmed the disparity between urban and rural areas in terms of PT availability.
In Cambodia, PT is more prevalent in urban due to higher competition, better average income,and more availability of tutoring as well as tutorial centers, especially in Phnom Penh,
Cambodia’s capital city (Bray, 1999a; Bray & Bunly, 2005; Bray & Lykins, 2012; Brehm etal., 2012). However, the latest study by Marshall and Fukao (2019) unveiled that PT was likely
to expand in rural areas.

The relationship between SES and PT was emphasized in developed and developing countries
and showed implications for social inequality. Previous studies (e.g., Bray & Kwok, 2003;
Dang & Rogers, 2008; Pallegedara, 2012) indicate parents' educational attainment, family size,
place of origin and family income as economic characteristics that influence children’s PT
demand. The lower-income families could not afford a greater quality of education than theirpeers whose income was higher. However, poor- and medium-income households were
influenced by their higher-income peers to obtain a better education for their children (Bray,2010). For example, Some families were qualitatively reported to use loans or work additional
part-time jobs in Cambodia (Bray et al., 2018) and India (Ghosh & Bray, 2018).

3.3.3 Subjects for tutoring and instructional time
Although students are required to study all subjects in the school curriculum, and no policy
reported that one subject is more important than others, some subjects for national61

examinations seemed to be more attractive to students for PT. This attracted candidates for theteaching profession. For example, in Cambodia, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and Khmer
literature were reported as the most popular for PT, while English seemed to be common among
students in the urban area. This popularity influenced those who entered teaching in Cambodia
because they were likely to earn more supplementary income by offering PT (Bray & Bunly,2005). Marshall and Fukao (2019, p. 106) also reported that about 53% of urban-area samples,
who reported opting for PT, took tutoring classes in mathematics, followed by physics andEnglish at 38% and 35%, respectively, while more than 75% of schoolteachers teachingmathematics and physics offer PT. For Kuwaiti higher education entrance examination
purposes, students used PT for science subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, andbiology. Among tutoring subjects, mathematics was in the most demand for PT in Kuwait(Alazmi & Alazmi, 2020). This trend seemed to be the same in other contexts such as
Cambodia (e.g., Bray et al., 2018, 2015), Hong Kong (Bray & Kwok, 2003), and the Republicof Georgia (Kobakhidze, 2015). Bray et al. (2018) explained that mathematics not only is acore subject, but it also assists the rest of the subjects. In specific cases like Malaysia, Malay
tended to take the lead, followed by English, mathematics, science, and history because
students need the pass grades in Malay and history to be eligible for a high school certificate(Kenayathulla, 2015). However, the question that can be raised is why history tended to be thelast on the list for tutoring, although it is one of the mandatory subjects to be eligible for thecertificate.

Shortage of instructional time is one factor influencing PT supply and demand. As teachers
have to take responsibility for multi-grades/classes as well as for both shifts, morning andafternoon, teachers complained about issues of being unable to complete the curriculum asplanned (Bray, 2008, p. 48). Insufficient instructional time is also associated with large class62

sizes and overloaded curricula in public schools (Bray et al., 2016). Along the same line,
Cambodian schoolteachers complained about their challenges in covering the entire syllabus
using MoEYS’ recommended teaching pedagogies, such as five-step pedagogical teaching(Dawson, 2009).

3.4 Synthesis of literature
PT is a complex phenomenon that is connected to different actors (i.e., parents, students, andteachers) and social, cultural, economic, and educational factors. Parents and students invest
their economic capital to race for their social capital to augment educational opportunity andsocial status, primarily to obtain social mobility through the standardized examinations and tocomplete public school syllabus with the hope of gaining better opportunities as well as
income. At the same time, schoolteachers invested their social status by using PT as oppression
to cater to their economic capital due to insufficient payment from their teaching position in
the public school. Therefore, students and parents, as well as schoolteachers, require PT toovercome their challenges for social status (i.e., academic success) and economic capital forsurvival, respectively. As highlighted by Brehm and Silva (2014), PT in the Cambodian context
is not about private education provision as existing research believes. This alerts researchers to
pay more attention to the relationship between the schoolteachers and students and parents
when studying PT in this context. The existing literature indicated most common reasons forthis phenomenon such as low salaries, teachers’ teaching pedagogies, teachers’
malpractice/tricks, shortage of instructional time, family SES and school’s geographical areas.

63

Chapter 4: METHODOLOGYThis chapter explains the entire research process of how this study was conducted to answer
the stated research questions. The chapter starts with the research design and its description
and conceptual framework. Next, it presents how the research setting and samples in the study
were selected and how data were collected, including how they were treated and analyzed.
Additionally, data descriptions and measurements were included.

4.1 Research design
It is worth reminding that the current study’s intent and questions involve not only examining
the causes and effects of PT but also exploring the social relationship that occurs in the school
settings to produce PT as well as dealing with school syllabus or teaching style and students’cultural value. Thus, the study employed the philosophical viewpoints of pragmatists for its
design to consider approaches rather than subscribing to only one way for data collection andanalysis to gain insights into the research problem. Pragmatism originates from the work ofPeirce, James, Mead, and Dewey; it conveys the importance of focusing on the research
problem in social science and then employing a pluralism approach to gain knowledge about
the research problem and questions instead of focusing on methods (Creswell & Creswell,2018; Morgan, 2007). Additionally, the use of both quantitative and qualitative researchmethods in one study is essential to capture the complexity of reality. This also helps gain
deeper insights by using the strengths of one method to fulfill another one’s shortcomings
rather than using one method (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado,2015).

In this regard, this study combines both survey and interview approaches for its design since
the purpose of this design is to study or explore the research problem in depth as well as the64information or reliable data on PT was neither documented nor obtained easily (Bray, 2013;
Valerio, 2013). To realize this, the study used self-reported survey questionnaires for datacollection from different stakeholders (i.e., students, parents, and teachers) to measure theattributes of the research problem. Then the interview was conducted to gain insight into theirdecision and extend some understanding from the survey.

4.1.1 Conceptual framework
Over a few decades, researchers have proposed several perspectives (e.g., low salaries,
shortage of instructional time, teachers’ malpractice, teaching pedagogies, school areas, andfamily SES) to explain the expansion of PT. A literature review reveals that the PT expansion,
especially in a context where schoolteachers can tutor their own students, was associated withsocial, cultural, economic, and institutional factors. In addition, it linked with schoolteachers,
students and parents who were PT actors. Parents and students invested their economic capitalto race for their social capital to gain educational opportunity and social status; for example,
succeeding in the examinations, learning the entire syllabus and obtaining better returns in the
future. At the same time, schoolteachers invested their social status in gaining economic capitalfor survival due to low salaries from the government school. A common perspective of PT
expansion is associated with survival and academic success among these tutoring actors. The
literature has been discussing social inequality and teachers’ unprofessionalism for decades incompulsory education. However, limited number of studies have paid their attention to thesecondary education, especially in the Cambodian context.

Brehm (2018) started to argue PT as a “social factor of tutoring” by situated PT as a “positional
good” in the late 2010s within the privatization. Similarly, Bray (2003) explained that families,
regardless of their income level, would invest in PT to gain “social mobility” through thestandardized examination, taking a role in the screening process everyone must go through.
65

Therefore, regardless of their background, they commit to moving toward their goals within
their space of possibility and attitude. With the same intent, Edwards et al. (2020) used“mobility theory” to explain the movement of Cambodian students at the basic education level
as PT has notably increased during Cambodia's commitment toward a knowledge- and skillbased society for its 2030 and 2050’s national goals. Additionally, Cambodia has been
performing better in economic improvement. Within this movement of change and influenceof international donors and development agents, the education system students and theirparents and schoolteachers adapted in response to that development and needs.

The “mobility theory” is combined by two main dimensions: field of possibility and aptitude
for movement. Edwards et al. (2020) categorized private tutoring as an “institution” and otherelements such as space (e.g., socio-economic position, place, transportation), and the ability tomove in the space while responding to the available opportunities in another dimension. These
three were connected and presented as the movement aptitude of individuals. However, thiscurrent study attempted to extend from Edwards et al.’s (2020) study by combining both
approaches (interview and survey) to gain a clear understanding of samples’ movement
aptitude as well as to triangulate to make results more clear by increasing the number ofparticipants from the survey approach. Additionally, this study extended data collection
through semi-structured interviews from different stakeholders rather than only with students
and parents. This extension would provide clearer insight not only on their decision to move
within the institution (i.e., PT) but also on its impact from one individual to another.
Additionally, this study combined all common aspects/reasons which were arguing by theprevious studies into to conceptual framework to examine whether these variables were thereasons schoolteachers, and students and parents engage in PT at the upper secondary schools.
However, two additional variables (i.e., teaching specialization/learning track and66

baccalaureate examination) were added and examined because this study intended to gain
insight into Grade-12 students’ PT engagement. The Grade-12 students are required to selecttheir learning tracks—science and social science, and to sit for the baccalaureate examination.
Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework

RQ#1
Teachers’ perceptions
to engage in PT

RQ#2
Students and parents’
perceptions to engage
in PT

Aspects(1) Low salaries(2) Teachers’ unethicalbehavior/malpractice(3) Shortage of instructionaltime(4) Misuse of authority /Holding full authority(5) School areas/locations(6) Family SES(7) Teaching specializationand students’ learning
track(8) Baccalaureate
examination

Private tutoring• Reasons toengage4.2 Research sites and participants
4.2.1 Research sites
This study employed a multistage random sampling method to select its research sites andparticipants, as the study population is large and geographically scattered (Creswell &Guetterman, 2019). The study was conducted in Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia,
and six provinces, namely Kampong Speu, Kampot, Steung Treng, Tboung Khum,
Battambang, and Koh Kong, among 25 municipalities (Appendix 5). As the household’s SES
was one of the main factors for PT demand, the study used the 2018 data on the Identificationof Poor Households Program from Cambodia’s Ministry of Planning, as cited in Sok andChhinh (2018), as criteria to select research sites. Figure 4.2 shows the landscape of the overall
poverty rate in all municipalities. Phnom Penh was purposively selected as it is categorized as67the only autonomous municipality. Therefore, it is considered a higher-SES area. The othersix provinces were selected according to their poverty rate. The first two provinces, whose
poverty rate was low (13.3%) among all, were selected and labelled as a high-SES area. Other
two provinces whose poverty rates were high (32.6% and 37.1%) were chosen and named as
low-SES areas; the last two provinces with the medium poverty rate of 17.7% were also
selected and presented as medium-SES areas. This classification was termed as “type” of school
location in this study.

Figure 4.2: Overall poverty rate by province
40
37.1

35
32.6

25
20.3 20.7 20.9 21

15
10

13.3 13.3

14.8 15.2

16.1 16.2 16.7

17 17.4 17.5 17.5

17.7 17.7

Stung Treng

20

Kampong Chamin percent

30

22 22.7

23.7

25.2

26.1

9.9

5

Koh Kong

Battambang

Kampong Chhnang

PailinKratiePursatPreah Vihear

Takeo

Mondul Kiri

Prey Veng

Kampong Thom

Tbong KmumKep

Ratanakiri

Banteay Meanchey

Otdar Meanchey

Siem Reap

KandalPreah Sihanouk

Svay Rieng

KampotKampong Speu

Phnom Penh0

Created by author
Source: Sok and Chhinh (2018)

According to the Education Management Information System (EMIS, hereafter), there are 493
schools with Grades 7-12 and 32 schools with only Grades 10, 11 and/or 12 in Cambodia

68

(MoEYS, 2019h). However, schools with only Grades 10-12 were removed from the list before
the selection process since those schools just started its upper secondary school operation
recently, and about half of them did not have Grade 12. Table 4.1 indicated the total populationof school and students.
Table 4.1: Number of schools and population
School areas

Number of schools

Total students

Females

Phnom Penh

38

74,76837,504

Urban areas

65

95,63349,798

Rural areas

390

413,464

220,537

Total

493

583,865

307,830

Next, schools were randomly selected to compare between Phnom Penh and urban and rural
areas. We purposively ensured the same number of schools in each type and area. Six schools
were randomly chosen from 14 city districts in Phnom Penh. Three schools located downtown,
and other three schools located in the suburb were selected as the research settings.
Additionally, three schools were selected in each province based on its location. One school
was chosen from all which are located in the center of the town. They were named as urban
school. Another one from schools located in districts which is between 20 and 30 kilometer(semi-urban school) and between 31 and 50 kilometer-away (rural school) from the town
center. Therefore, there were 24 schools in total, six schools representing each type (i.e.,higher-SES, high-SES, medium-SES and low-SES) as shown in Table 4.2. Schools, which arein the same selection criteria, were recruited through simple random sampling.

4.2.2 Samples and samplingWith an attempt to gain insight into the PT phenomenon, the study selected its samples fromdifferent educational stakeholders such as schoolteachers, students and their parents who are69

the main actors in PT, and school principals as well as independent informants from POE andpolicy level.

4.2.2.1 Schoolteachers
The study selected both groups of schoolteachers who engaged and did not engage in PT fromeach targeted school (n = 975, Female = 336) as illustrated in Table 4.2. Since a record or
document on schoolteachers who are tutors nor non-tutors is not available or accessible,
schoolteachers who were teaching in upper secondary school level at the selected schools
during the academic year 2020—2021 were targeted. Specifically, only schoolteachers whotaught Grades 11 and 12 were selected to be the participants because the study scoped toobserve the affect from the learning track—social science and science. The learning track starts
from Grade 11 to 12 only, as mentioned in Chapter two. Of 1,197 teachers (Female = 439) intotal, who were teaching either Grades 11 or 12 as well as both grades, 975 schoolteachers(Female = 344) were purposively invited to be research informants.

4.2.2.2 Students and parents
The study scope was limited to the Grade 12—the only grade with a nationwide examination—
because PT is significantly associated with high-stakes examination (e.g., Bray, 2009, 2021;
Bray & Lykins, 2012; Bregvadze, 2012). All Grade-12 students in the selected schools were
purposively selected to be respondents. As shown in Table 4.2, a total of 6,737 samples (Female= 3,453) were selected. There were 4,036 students (Female = 1,853) in social science track and2,701 (Female = 1,600) students in science track. Their parents, additionally, were invited tobe the informants in this study.

70

Table 4.2: Targeted samples for the study
Grade 12 students
Type Location
Social Science Science
Total(Female)(Female)(Female)P01
231 (93)209 (130)440 (223)P02
341 (146)
231 (124)
545 (270)P03
236 (96)
188 (111)424 (207)
Phnom
Penh
P04
211 (108)107 (62)318 (170)P05
130 (55)
112 (69)242 (124)
P06
34 (14)41 (19)75 (33)n = 1,156 (512)888 (515)
2,044 (1,027)
H07 468 (229)
150 (103)618 (332)
Kampong
H08 218 (102)68 (54)286 (156)
Speu
H09 175 (80)37 (26)212 (106)
H10 110 (44)66 (36)176 (80)
KampotH11 184 (88)56 (37)240 (125)
H12 157 (71)72 (38)229 (109)n = 1,312 (614)449 (294)
1,761 (908)
M13 245 (127)71 (39)316 (166)
Steung
M14 75 (47)
14 (6)
89 (53)Treng
M15 30 (20)8 (2)38(22)
M16 245 (125)241 (148)
486 (273)
Tbong
M17 72 (37)128 (86)
200 (123)Khum
M18 104 (75)167 (104)271 (179)n = 771 (431)629 (385)
1,400 (816)L19
292 (127)
181 (97)479 (224)
BattamL20
149 (73)134 (49)283 (52)bang
L21
75 (47)91 (54)166 (101)
L22
170 (77)
181 (103)351 (180)
Koh
L23
25 (10)25 (10)Kong
L24
105 (42)123 (93)228 (135)n = 797 (296)735 (406)
1,532 (702)
Total n = 24
4,036 (1,853)
2,701 (1,600) 6,737 (3,453)* number of teachers in the selected school (both levels and every subjects)

Low-SES

Medium-SES

High-SES

Higher-SES

Sch.
I.D

Teachers
Total*
Selected(Female)(Female)92 (40)87 (35)75 (31)66 (26)131 (56)
96 (40)60 (20)54 (14)52 (16)45 (12)61 (23)41 (17)471 (186)
389 (144)
63 (21)55 (18)45 (10)37 (8)
43 (15)32 (13)37 (15)30 (10)40 (19)33 (12)59 (22)48 (15)287 (102)235 (76)
45 (17)40 (16)14 (6)
14 (6)
13 (2)
12 (2)
64 (10)45 (9)
35 (11)31 (11)31 (17)27 (10)202 (63)
169 (54)
81 (37)68 (25)31 (9)
25 (9)
22 (8)
17 (8)
52 (12)39 (9)
23 (14)8 (3)28 (8)
25 (8)
237 (88)
182 (62)
1,197 (439) 975 (336)

4.2.2.3 Informants for the interview stage
The researcher selected individuals who had agreed to participate in the interview in their selfreported survey. Opportunistic sampling was employed when recruiting the informants since
this approach can help unfold specific events or phenomena to answer the research questions
in depth or lead to novel ideas and interesting findings (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). Since71the study aimed to investigate stakeholders’ perception of PT, the study purposively aimed to
select the same number of informants from teachers and students, their parents, and all focus
areas. However, to avoid diverting attention away from the original aim as a caution of
implementing opportunistic sampling, samples (i.e., tutor and non-tutor; tutee and non-tutee)
were categorized into new lists based on their areas, and they were randomly selected. All
informants gave written consent to be interviewed and their information to be used foracademic purposes, including writing this dissertation.
•

Schoolteachers: four teachers (tutor = 2; non-tutor = 2) from each school were selected.
Therefore, 96 informants from the schoolteacher groups were selected for the interviewing
stage. If any participant failed to provide the contact details or who could not be contacted
neither before the interviewing date nor on the agreed interviewing date, the same process
would be conducted to select substituted informants from the same category (i.e., tutor or
non-tutor) in the same school to reach an adequate sample size. However, in case thesubstituted informant as tutor could not be contacted either, the researcher would select thenon-tutor to replace. The study aimed at maintaining a high number of non-tutor
participants because very few studies included this type of samples in their scope of study
and to seek reasons for declining to engage in PT.

•

Students and parents: The same procedure was done to select students and their parents as
informants for the semi-structured interviews. The study aimed to select two tutees and two
non-tutees and their parents from each school. Therefore, the study would obtain 96
students and 96 parents as informants during this stage.

72

•

Gatekeepers11: a school (vice)principal of each school was purposively invited to be theparticipants in this stage to explore teachers’ behavior Page (2016) explains that although
the teachers’ malpractices were covert, they were never hidden from the school
administrators’ attention. In the same line, the (vice)-director of the POE, who is in chargeof the Secondary Education Office, was also invited to seek their actions toward PT inschools and insight on teachers’ malpractices and their responses.

•

Independent informants: In an attempt to observe the overview of what and how has been
done and what MoEYS is going to do in terms of PT regulations/policies at the school levelfrom the perspectives of the policy level, the study purposively invited officials who were
working in three departments of MoEYS, namely Policy Department, General Secondary
Education Department, and Examination Affairs Department as participants. They weretermed as independent informants in this study since they are not directly involved in the
PT supply and demand process. Regarding the informants for this category, the researcher
acquired the appointment of the director of the concerned departments after introducing thestudy’s purpose and specific characteristics of the targeted person. The appointed person
should be the one who has been involved in guiding schools toward implementing thepolicies related to the examination before and after the nationwide 12th grade’s examination
reform.

4.3 Instruments and Data collection
4.3.1 Instruments
A survey and interview were used for data collection. Data from both survey questionnaires
and interviews were collected through online applications due to the school closure on the 16th

11

Gatekeeper is referred to as an individual who usually has ‘insider’ status at the site as well as who provides

entrance to the site and assists researcher to locate/identify people to study (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019, p.
211).

73

of March 2020 following the COVID-19 outbreak. Respondents were informed about thesurvey purpose and requested to confirm their voluntary participation. Also, interviewees gave
written consent to record and use data for academic purposes (Appendix 6).

Three online questionnaires were developed to collect data from schoolteachers, students, andparents. Questionnaires for students and parents were combined before data analysis.
Therefore, completed questionnaires from respondents whose either parent or child did not
respond to the survey questionnaire would be categorized as a lost sample. The questionnaires
were constructed using Google form because schoolteachers and students were familiar withit, and it can be accessed on computers, tablets, and smartphones. In addition, schoolteachersand students reported using Google Forms for their assessments during this new normal wayof teaching and learning. Therefore, this was seen as the most convenient means to the target
respondents in most areas in the Cambodian context. First, survey questionnaires weredeveloped in English because most contents were mainly based on the previous literature
written in English. Then, those survey questionnaires were translated into Khmer—the native
language of Cambodia. The translation was a challenge because of the vocabulary and theconcept. Thus, the word “supplementary” used in the original term “private supplementarytutoring” was removed as being explained in the definition of terms in Chapter one. Finally,
the translated questionnaires and interviews for all groups of informants were consulted withand checked by the researcher’s colleagues who have expertise in English and Khmer
languages to ensure the validity of the contents and errors in both spelling and Khmer sentence
structure which may change the meaning of the statement or question.

Time allocation for online questionnaires was the main barrier when developing thequestionnaire to ensure better response rates and quality since it affects participants’ time and74

imposes a financial burden. Past literature on the effects of length of questionnaire on survey
response revealed that when one personal questionnaire consisted of more than 100 questionsor 10 pages, it would cause low response rates and quality. The best length of time to allocate
for responding to the questionnaire was still controversial (Burchell & Marsh, 1992). However,the Versta Research team (2011) suggested that a good rule of thumb is that a survey shouldtake 15 to 20 minutes. Similarly, Hugick and Best (2008, p. 659) suggested the same length oftime for telephone and online surveys. Besides the length of time, an unstable internet
connection is also one of the factors that should be considered when collecting data online.
Recent studies during COVID-19 commonly revealed the Internet connection was the main
issue affecting students and schoolteachers’ perceptions (e.g., Jalli, 2020; Muthuprasad et al.,2021; Soeung & Chim, 2022).

Regarding the interviews, five sets of interview protocols were developed for schoolteachers,
students, parents, school principal, and POE (vice-)director, including staff at the policy level(Appendix 8a – 8e). The interview protocols for PT actors (i.e., schoolteachers, students, andparents) were adapted from Bray and Kwo (2015, pp. 170–173, 177–178) while interviewing
questions for school principals, POE (vice-)directors, and staff at policy level were developed
accordingly to probe the central phenomenon identified during the interview with all PT actors.

4.3.2 Piloting stage
Before proceeding to the data collection stage, the study went through certain procedures toensure sound and replicable data and the accuracy of the results. First, validity and reliability
were checked to assure the quality of the measurement instrument (Kimberlin & Winterstein,2008). All survey questionnaires were piloted in five upper secondary schools in March 2020.
One in Phnom Penh, two urban schools in Kampong Chhnang whose poverty rate was 26.1%

75

(highest rate among the remaining provinces), and two other rural upper secondary schools in
Banteay Meanchey whose poverty rate was 17.5% (medium rate). The links of the students'
and parents’ survey questionnaires were sent to 217 Grade-12 students and 168 schoolteachers.
As a result, 165 students, 51 parents, and 65 schoolteachers responded to the questionnaire.
Although the Cronbach’s Alpha values were acceptable (α =.716 for students; α =.762 forparents, and α =.693 for schoolteachers), the median length of time the respondents spent on
answering the questionnaire was 42 minutes for 97 items, 37 minutes for 52 items, and 29
minutes for 52 items from students, parents, and schoolteachers respectively. The researcher
assumed that the length of his questionnaire may have influenced the response rates eventhough the items were less than 100. After receiving the survey questionnaires, the researcher
contacted participants randomly to gain insight into their challenges and comments toward
increasing a friendly-user condition. A total of 13 out 20 informants suggested reducing theitems and breaking page by item since most informants answered the questionnaire throughtheir handphone. Therefore, some items were removed from the original versions.

As a result, the items were reduced to 36 items for schoolteachers, 26 for students, and 29 forparents. Schoolteachers’ self-reported survey (Appendix 7a) consisted of six sections: personal
information, about family, your home, perceptions of teaching and learning, private tutoring,and inviting for interview. Regarding items related to schoolteachers’ homes, it was especiallyused to measure their family SES. The items were adapted from the MoEYS’ poor priority
form for the scholarship. This form was used to identify students in underprivileged households
and privileged ones by the Department of Higher Education (MoEYS, 2019b). Although these
items were used with students in the original form of MoEYS, these were applicable for SES
in the Cambodian context.

76For the students’ self-reported survey (Appendix 7b), there were four main sections: personal
information, perceptions of teaching and learning, private tutoring engagement, and contact
information for the interview. The items related to students’ perceptions of teaching andlearning at public schools and PT classes were constructed based on the previous local studies’
findings. The researcher constructed those findings into the statement form to make it easy forthe respondents in this context. As mentioned above, to ensure validity, those statements wereconsulted and checked by the experts after the translation into the native language. Similarly,
the parents’ survey questionnaire (Appendix 7c) consisted of four sections – personal
information, information about your home, about private tutoring, and contacting for interview.
To measure family SES, the items were adapted from MoEYS’ 2019 poor priority form as it
was in the schoolteachers’ survey. Moreover, the reasons for parents investing in PT wereadapted from Kobakhidze’s (2015, p. 48) survey.

4.3.3 Data collection
4.3.3.1 Ethical procedure and its effects
The study took the same ethical procedure for each research setting before the data collection
stage. First, Cambodia’s MoEYS-approved research permit was sent to each POE of the target
research setting through the Telegram application. Then the researcher arranged a time to
conduct a brief (about 30-minute) discussion with the (vice-)director of POE through Zoom
according to their convenient time. Research’s purpose included why their province wasselected, how much time the data collection may spend at the site, targeted schools andparticipants, and the data collection procedure were presented to them. Next, the researchpermit was sent to all targeted schools in each selected province. Following that, the researcher
explained the research process, including data collection, to the school (vice) principal. Afterobtaining approval, the researcher would work with schoolteachers in charge of each Grade-77

12 class and administrative staff who were in charge of teaching staff at the upper secondary
level to obtain the contact numbers or contact addresses to proceed with the data collection.

This ethical procedure reduced the number of research sites and participants in this current
study due to being conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak and being requested to sign a
consent form. For example, two selected provinces (one in high-SES type and one in mediumSES type), consisting of six selected schools, refused to allow the researcher to continue his
procedure by explaining that some schools were being used as quarantine center as well asteachers and students including school principals were being overwhelmed with online
teaching and learning. Therefore, the research procedure was requested to be postponed during
the school closure and to wait until face-to-face data collection could be done. Similarly, six
schools (three in Phnom Penh and three in low-SES type) out of the 18 remained schools denied
collaborating in this study. As a result, only 12 out of 24 selected schools with 3,066 students(Female = 1,579) in total participated in this study. Also, there were 526 teachers (Female =201) as exhibited in Table 4.3. Facing a similar issue, Bray et al. (2015, p. 226) explained that
Cambodian adults seemed to be cautious when signing on official paper or written documents
due to high rates of illiteracy and the legacy of Cambodia’s political history.
Table 4.3: Remained population for the study

Type

Location

Sch.
I.D

Grade 12 students

Teachers

Social Science

Science

Total

Total

(Female)(Female)(Female)(Female)Higher-SES

Phnom Penh

3655 (309)

450 (255)

1,105 (564)187 (67)

High-SES

Kampot3451 (203)

194 (111)645 (314)

136 (56)

Medium-SES

Steung Treng

3350 (194)

93 (47)443 (241)72 (25)

Low-SES

Battam-bang

2373 (174)272 (151)

669 (389)

645 (325)

Koh Kong

1

105 (42)123 (93)228 (135)

28 (8)

1,934 (922)

1,132 (657)

3,066 (1,579)

526 (201)

Total n = 1278

4.3.3.2 Self-reported survey
This phase of the data collection started from mid-March to late May 2021. The online survey
was sent out to individual schoolteachers and students through social applications (i.e.,
Telegram). The online survey for parents was sent to them through individual students’
Telegram accounts as schools have a limited number of parents’ contacts; some contact
numbers were no longer available in the system. Respondents were informed about the purposeof the study on the first page and requested to confirm their voluntary participation. The
participants could freely accept or decline the request to participate in the survey by clicking
one of the choices—agree or disagree—before proceeding to the survey questions. As a result,
198 teachers (Female = 76), accounted for 37.64% (Female = 37.81%) as well as 862 paired
students and parents (Female = 591), accounted for 26.94% (Female = 37.43%) of the total
samples responded the survey questionnaire. Notably, 862 respondents were paired out of
1,224 students and 1,198 parents who responded to the online survey. Table 4.4 indicates thetotal number and rates of respondents who answered to the survey questionnaire by type.
Table 4.4: Total and rates of respondents among the selected participants by type
Type

Paired students and parents

Teachers

Total (%)

Female (%)

Total (%)

Female (%)

Higher-SES

324 (29.32)

217 (38.48)

60 (32.08)

23 (34.33)

High-SES

290 (44.96)

207 (65.92)

57 (41.91)

21 (37.50)

Medium-SES

00

32 (44.44)

14 (56)

Low-SES248 (28.41)

167 (36.30)

49 (37.40)

18 (33.96)

Total respondents (%) 862 (26.94)

591 (37.43)

198 (37.64)

76 (37.81)

4.3.3.3 Semi-structured interview
4.3.3.3.1 Planning stage
The main purpose of this stage was to arrange a convenient time for the interview and to informparticipants about the research, including the research ethics. This process was done in late79

June 2021. The researcher contacted each selected individual through Telegram to discuss theinterview process, arrange a convenient time, and reconfirm the means for the interview (e.g.,
Skype, Telegram, Zoom, Google meet, or Facebook messenger). In addition to this, theresearcher explained briefly to the selected individuals the reasons they were selected, thestudy’s and interview’s purpose, and the protection of their information and written consent.
Then, the researcher sent a written consent letter to each participant and asked them to read it
carefully before submitting it to the researcher on the interviewing date. They were also
informed about their rights to cancel their interview appointment or withdraw their
participation, including their interview record/transcript at any time (e.g., before, during, orafter the interview), although they had already agreed to participate or submitted the writtenconsent form. In this stage, 25 students and parents decided not to participate in the interview
process after the discussion on the written consent form. Similarly, 9 schoolteachers and 3
school principals were left out, although they agreed to participate in the interview with acondition of not completing the written consent. In total, 39 informants (28.47%) across thegroup selected for interviews were reduced regarding their concern about the written consent
form. Table 4.5 shows the retention samples were only 98 (Female = 42) out of 137 selected
informants for the interview stage.

There were 10 non-tutees (Female = 4) among 23 students, while 11 (Female = 5) out of 24parents whose child did not take PT could be reached for interviews. As mentioned in theprevious section, the study aimed to recruit more non-tutors to substitute tutors who could not
be contacted for interviews, so the study reached 17 non-tutors (Female = 4) out of 39 teachers
for the interviews. The researcher could also reach only one out of three independent
informants for the interview. Therefore, there were 99 informants.

80

Table 4.5: Retention number of informants for the interviews (by school type)
Informant
Type

category

PT actors

Gatekeepers(n = 120, Female = 54)(n =17, Female =2)

Lost

Students

Parents

Teachers

principals

POEs

Selected n.

(4x9) =36

(4x9) =36

(4x12) =48

12

5

Higher-

Total

8

10

8

2

-

12

SES

Female

5

6

1

1

-

4

Total

8

9

11

3

1

8

Female

6

5

3

0

0

4

Medium-

Total

-

-

10

1

-

5

SES

Female

-

-

4

0

-

0

Low-SES

Total

7

5

10

3

2

14

Female

4

4

2

1

0

6

Retention Total (%)

23 (63.89)

24 (66.67) 39 (81.25)

9 (75)

3 (60)

39 (28.47)(n =98)15 (71.43) 15 (78.95) 10 (71.43)

2 (100)014 (25)High-SES

Female (%)

Samples

4.3.3.3.2 Interviewing stage
The study employed Leech’s (2002) gaining rapport techniques for a semi-structured interview(e.g., putting respondents at ease, briefly restate not reinterpret what respondent has just said
before moving to the next question, ask for use not meaning when you do not understand, ask
easy question first,

use ‘enough is enough’ rule) to create a friendly environment for

informants to express their viewpoints freely and confidently without any interrupted or
intimidated as well as to grasp any important, unexpected points. Therefore, the researcher
conducted interviews as informally as possible to make informants feel comfortable because it
can allow him to get close to them for the most reliable responses without any barrier. Theinterview stage was between July and November 2021, including the transcript verification
stage.

81

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, which restrained the researcher from traveling to the researchsite for face-to-face interviews, the constraints of interviewing online were considered inadvance. To minimize informants’ time and expenses on the internet, each interview wasplanned to be completed within 30 minutes through a video call. However, a voice-callinterview would be used if experiencing slow internet connectivity during the process or as per
request. Some challenges were encountered during the interview due to an unstable internet
connection. This inconvenience may have affected informants’ answers, whereas online
interviews provided respondents with more confidence and freedom to share their perceptions
than a face-to-face, on-site interview conducted on the school campus. Interviews were donein Khmer, the native language of both informants and the researcher. The researcher conducted
all interviews by himself through online applications of the informant’s preference.

Before stating the interview, the researcher started by thanking them for joining and again
informing them about the study’s purpose, protection of their identity, right to ask to pause/stop(recording) the interview, and confidentiality of their answers about why they were selected tojoin. Also, the researcher asked whether they had any concerns or questions before proceedingwith the interview process. Then the interview began with a self-introduction by the researcher
and the informant (Appendix 8a–8e). By the end of the interview, the researcher informed
informants about transcript verification and requested permission for further contact in case of
having to verify some points or seek further information which may be needed during the data
analysis process. Note-taking and voice/video recording were used during the interview.

4.3.3.3.3 Post interview
Each recorded interview was transcribed soon after the interview had been completed, andnotes were reviewed and combined. The transcript was sent to each informant through82Telegram or Facebook messenger as per request to verify before proceeding to the analysis
stage. This phase is a crucial process in a qualitative study to guarantee accurate and complete
information before data analysis (Hagens et al., 2009). Informants were requested to readthrough their written transcript and add more information to clarify doubts or remove any
pieces of information they felt were inappropriate or misleading. Informants could do this on
their own, or they could inform the researcher by using voice message to change or remove, as
well as request to work on it with the researcher in case they do not have any computer toaccess. Moreover, this phase helps the informants ensure that none of their and/or third party’s
identities were included. Although 99 transcripts were sent for verification and confirmation,
10 were not returned despite the researcher’s attempts to contact the concerned informants toreturn their verification transcripts a few times. Therefore, the bring-forward transcripts for thedata analysis stage were only 89, as seen in Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6: Number of bring-forward transcripts for analysis
Attribute
PT actors

Gatekeepers and independent
Grand total n.

Teachers
Parents
Students
Sub-total
Principals
POEs
Central level
Sub-total

Sent (female)39 (10)24 (15)23 (15)77 (40)
9 (2)
3 (0)
1 (0)
13 (2)
99 (42)

Lost (female)
2 (2)
5 (2)
2 (0)
9 (4)
1 (0)
1 (0)
10 (4)

Returned (female)37 (8)
19 (13)21 (15)68 (36)
8 (2)
3 (0)
1 (0)
12 (2)
89 (38)4.3.4 Data analysis
4.3.4.1 Interview data
The interactive model for qualitative analysis was employed to analyze qualitative data of thisstudy as Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) expressed that this model allows researchers tomove among those components during data collection and then shuffle among condensation,83

display, and conclusion for the remainder of the study as shown in Figure 4.3. Due to this active
interaction in terms of the possibility to merge data analysis and interpretation as well as theprocess of data collection and analysis, this model has become popular in qualitative research(Cohen et al., 2017).

Figure 4.3: Components of data analysis: Interactive model

Data
collection

Data display

Data condensation**

Conclusions:drawing/verifying

The term “condensation” is used in their 3rd edition (2014) to replace the original term

“reduction” in 1994. The original term could imply that the researchers were weakening theanalysis or losing something when applying this model.
Source: Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 12); Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014, p. 10).

To ensure validity and reliability of the data, code and re-code strategy or coding agreement
for content analysis were employed. Data were encoded twice within one or two weeks. Thenboth encodings were compared to see similarities and differences (Anney, 2014). The
consistency was calculated using the formula described by Miles and Huberman (1994) as seen
below. As explained by those authors, when the coefficient of agreement is above 70% between
the first and second coding, it is considered sufficient agreement or reliable.

!"#$%& () *+&%%#%!,-

reliability = (!"#$%& () *+&%%#%!,- / !"#$%& () 01-*+&%%#%!,-) or!"#$%& () *+&%%#%!,-

reliability = (,(,*3 4(0%- () %*45 4(0%&)
84Moreover, an official monolingual Khmer dictionary was used to ensure the correct meaningof some words/phrases during the conceptual analysis to mitigate subjectivity, reliability, andvalidity issues. The researcher contacted informants for clarification in the case of issues
pertaining to the interpretation of dialects to avoid misleading concepts. To serve the study’s
intent, the three crucial terms were clearly defined before starting the coding process to ensure
consistency in each coding stage (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Excerpt of codebook used for analysis
Code name

Code definition

Code includes

It is referred to as a climate in which a caring

Precisely explaining, accepting

relationship between the carer (schoolteacher)questions, paying attention to every

Caringand cared-for (student) flourishes, and as a

individual regardless of own tutees,

pedagogies

pedagogy, it assists students in achieving

non-tutees, and tutees with others,prescribed skills and knowledge (seehaving interaction between

Noddings, 2005, pp. 14–15).

individuals.

It is mainly related to teachers’ instruction in

Hurried teaching, slowing down

the class. It covers all kinds of teachingteaching, withholding somebehaviors of teachers which interfere with

contents, unavailable for questions,students achieving the prescribed skills andfocusing more on theory, giving

knowledge.

few practices,

Any kinds of activities as well as either direct

Mocking, blaming,or indirect verbalization which make students

Forcing/advising students to takefeel ashamed or scared and feel that taking PT

PT, boasting PT advantages,

is a “must”. This also includes any activities

allowing own tutees to cheat,

involving paying money to gain benefits overgiving better grades, emphasizing

others and to build rapport between the supply

some test items during the tutoringand demand side, but not include paying forclasses, selling test paper/answers,PT.

paying to remove the number ofUncaring
pedagogies

Unethical
behaviors

absence, demanding/giving gifts,
collecting money during publicschool hour.

85

It is important to calculate the coefficient of agreement for both codings as its result is basedon the total number of coding in each coding phase. To simplify the calculation, the value ofrater reliability was determined by the number of total agreements in 1st coding divided by the
total number of codes in 1st coding. Then a similar method was followed for the reliability of
2nd coding. Table 4.8 illustrates the comparison.

Table 4.8: Examples of comparison table (after condensation)ID

1st coding

2nd coding

Count

Teacher: Nothing else but to practice more

[Extra[Learn more

+1

p.2

exercises. At school, we could practicepractice]

exercises]

lines

some, but it is just about formula and some

15-17

exercises in the [school] textbook. [we][unethical[PT benefit]-1[unethical

-1

Page

Extracted text
Moderator: Can you tell me what wasbehind your decision to take PT that year?

[n]ever got good score if [we] did not takePT. (started with a deep breath). Teachers at behavior]that time [1992-95] were so unfair.

T03--No code--

behavior]p.3

Teacher: …[S]ome exercises [test items][unethical[unethicallines

are the same to what he [teacher of math]behavior]

behavior]

2-4taught in tutoring class. He did not tell us

indirectly talked [gave some hints] about it[marketizing--No code--during the explanation.

strategy]+1[tutees] what [test items] would appear in
the [monthly/semester] exams; he justTotal number of codes =18

20

Total number of disagreements =2

4

Total number of agreements =Coefficient of agreement =

86

-1

16
0.888 (89%)

0.80 (80%)

Good

4.3.4.2 Survey data
The quantitative data were used to examine factors influencing teachers’ and students’decisions on whether to engage in PT at Cambodian upper secondary schools. The decision to
engage in PT, the dependent variable, was obtained from both teachers and students and codeddichotomously (No = 0, Yes = 1). Therefore, a Binary Logistic Regression was used to examine
the relationship between teachers’ as well as students’ predictors and this categorical variable.
After the period for data collection was over, data were extracted from Google form and coded
before proceeding to the data cleaning and analysis.

The teachers’ survey questionnaire consisted of 36 items. The overall internal consistency of
the instrument when administered was α = .685. The decision to engage in PT was predictedby 13 predictors, which were combined in three constructs, namely school-related (i.e., school
type, area), individual-related (i.e., gender, teacher specialization, qualification, teachinggroup, place of residence, including socio-economic status), and teacher’s attitude such as
perceptions of public school (5 items), teaching attitudes (12 items), family-related variables(i.e., spouse’ occupation, spouse’s education, using loan) including one item as a dependent
variable.

The socio-economic status was measured by 10 items which were about their living condition.
The Cronbach’s alpha value of these 10 items was α = .618, which a little lower than thethreshold (α = .70); however, it was within the scope of acceptable value (α = .50). Exploratory
Factor Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax and Kaiser normalization in therotation was performed to obtain the regressed scores for teachers’ SES. For item-factor
saturations, values greater than .40 were used as criteria. The analysis produced two factors(KMO = .742; Bartlett’s test = 317.754; p <.001), and the variance explained of the variable87was 62.45%. They were named as housing condition, measured by four items having
Eigenvalues of 2.271 and α = .628, and extra-income source, measured by two items having
Eigenvalues of 1.476 and α = .60.

The teachers’ perception of teaching at the public school was measured by five items (α = .773)
which were about their work during the official hours. The performance of Exploratory Factor
Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax and Kaiser normalization in rotation
produced one factor and named as attitude toward public school with an Eigenvalues of 53.475(KMO = .754; Bartlett’s test = 275.004; p<.001), and the variance explained of the variable
was 53.48%.

The teaching attitude was measured by 12 items about their teaching activities with the
Cronbach’s alpha value of α = .90. The results of factor loading by using principal axis
factoring with Varimax and Kaiser normalization in rotation produced two distinct factors of
this construct (KMO = .905; Bartlett’s test = 1383.580; p<.001), the variance explained of thevariable was 61.05%. The first factor was named caring pedagogies, which was measured by
10 items, having an Eigenvalues of 6.018 and α = .918, and another one was uncaring
pedagogies, measured by two items having an Eigenvalues of 1.307 and α = .571. Table 4.9
exhibits the factor loading of schoolteacher-related factors.

88

Table 4.9: Factor loading of teachers’ predictors(KMO =.742, p<.001)

Socio-economic status

α =.628 α =.60
1. Materials of your walls.778

2. Materials of your floor.654

3. Type of toilet you own.676

4. Sources you use to cook your meal.439

5. Do you have rooms for rent?

.563

6. Do you have a store/land for rent?

.681(KMO =.754, p<.001)(KMO =.905, p<.001)

Teaching attitude

Perception of public school

1. Government salary is low.

α =.773 α =.918 α =.571.530

2. Instructional time is insufficient to ensure knowledge
and skills as required by the national syllabus.

.729

3. We are required to use a learner-based approach, so weneed more time to explain to students in detail about .722
knowledge and skills.
4. Students can learn only theories with few practices.

.729

5. Class size is too big.

.515

1. Use group works.417

2. Use individual works.588

3. Explain the lesson in detail.745

4. Assign more homework.708

5. Respond to most questions of students.857

6. Practice more knowledge and skills.828

7. Practice previous years’ exam tests.759

8. Have active interaction.879

9. Main purpose is to complete the syllabus.

.423

10. Main purpose is to strengthen students’ knowledge and skills.

.80211. Focus on theories with few practices.630

12. Summarize and dictate lessons.603

Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed

89

pedagogies

Uncaring

pedagogies

Caringpublic school

Attitude towardsourceExtra-income

condition

Item descriptions

Housing

Constructs

Factor loading

Regarding the students’ survey, there were 26 items in the combined students’ and parents’
self-reported survey questionnaire with the Cronbach’s Alpha value of .948 whenadministered. These items were comprised of two constructs: school-related (school types andareas), individual-related such as gender, learning track, perception of learning and teaching at
public schools (12 items), perceptions of learning and teaching at PT classes (7 items),
influence by others (5 items), teachers’ attitude (10 items), and one item of PT demand as adependent variable. The perception of learning and teaching at public schools was measured
by 12 items (α = .927) using a Likert scale (ranging from 1 = no idea, 5 = Absolutely agree).
Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax and Kaiser
normalization in rotation was performed to obtain the regressed scores for students’ perceptionof public school. For item-factor saturations, values greater than .40 were used as criteria. As
a result, it produced one factor named perceptions of teaching during official hours (KMO
= .960; Bartlett’s test of Sphericity = 7897.295; p<.001), with the variance explained of thevariable was 65.01%, as indicated in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Factor loading of students’ perception of learning at public school
Item descriptions

Factor

1. Teachers teach lessons very fast.

.749

2. Teachers focus much on theories.

.781

3. Teachers cannot cover the entire syllabus.

.764

4. Teachers do not explain the lesson in detail.

.850

5. Teachers give only a few practices.

.811

6. Teachers give challenging homework.

.778

7. Teachers emphasize tests before the test dates.

.802

8. Teachers allow tutees to check cheat sheets during the tests.

.770

9. Instructional time for core examination is not enough.

.843

10. Class is too large.

.784

11. If I do not take private tutoring with her/him, I will never get a good grade.

.749

12. If I do not take private tutoring with her/him, I do not feel comfortable during school. .747
Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed

90The perception of learning and teaching at private tutoring classes was measured by seven
items (α = .848) using a Likert scale (ranging from 1 = no idea to 5 = Absolutely agree). As
indicated in Table 4.11, all items were loaded in one factor which was labeled as perceptionsof tutoring classes (KMO = .804; Bartlett’s test of Sphericity = 2480.487; p<.001), and thevariance explained by the variable was 51.94%.
Table 4.11: Factor loading of students’ perception of private tutoring classes
Item descriptions

Factor

1. Teaching is easy to understand.

.781

2. Gain more techniques and skills for examinations.

.722

3. Can practice previous years’ examination tests.

.453

4. Have more chances to ask questions.

.730

5. Can have good relationship with schoolteachers.

.598

6. Receive more care from schoolteachers during school hours.

.721

7. Improve my academic achievement.

.685

Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed

The influence from others, having five items measured by a Likert scale (ranging from 1 = noidea to 5 = absolutely agree) with the Cronbach’s Alpha value of .853, was also examined in
Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax and Kaiser
normalization in rotation. It produced one factor, as shown in Table 4.12, named as influenceof others with the KMO values of .794, and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity of 1443.699 (p<.001),
having the variance explained of the variable of 70.52%.
Table 4.12: Factor loading of influence by others
Item descriptions

Factor

1. If many of my friends take private tutoring classes, I do too.

.586

2. My parents/relatives chose private tutoring classes for me.772

3. My teachers recommended private tutoring classes for me.

.878

4. My school principal recommended use to take private tutoring.

.875

5. I do not want to be different from others.

.851

Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed

91The teachers’ attitude was measured by 10 items using a five-point Likert scale with a
Cronbach’s Alpha value of .903. Table 4.13 indicates that Exploratory Factor Analysis using
principal axis factoring with Varimax and Kaiser normalization in rotation produced two
distinct factors (KMO = .897; Bartlett’s test of Sphericity = 5744.676; p<.001) and the varianceexplained of the variable was 71.61%. The first factor, uncaring behavior, was measured byseven items, having an Eigenvalue of 54.171 with a Cronbach’s Alpha value of .909. The
second factor was named as caring behavior, measured by three items (α = .916) with an
Eigenvalue of 17.435.

Table 4.13: Factor loading of teachers’ teaching attitude
Factors
Item descriptions

Uncaring

Caringbehavior

behavior

α = .909

α = .916

1. Teachers skip some contents of the syllabus.

.653

2. Teachers do not have time to answer questions.

.745

3. Teachers give more care to their own tutees.

.790

4. Teachers often call non-tutees or tutees with other teachers to solve .812
challenging homework or exercises.
5. Teachers give higher scores to their own tutees.

.831

6. Teachers explain lessons very briefly.

.696

7. Teachers teach only theories with few practices.

.677

8. Teachers teach lessons with care.

.819

9. Teachers are friendly and approachable.

.896

10. Teachers are fair to everyone.

.856

Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed

Data obtained from parents’ survey questionnaires were combined with students’ data to
predict influence on students’ PT engagement. The parents’ survey questionnaire consisted of
29 items with the Cronbach’s Alpha value of .862 when administered. These items were92

divided into only one construct, namely parent-related, which consisted of parental educational
attainment, parental occupation, parent’s PT experience, family socio-economic status, reasons
to invest in PT, and reasons not to invest in PT.

The family SES was measured by 12 items with a Cronbach’s Alpha value of .644. The
researcher conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax
and Kaiser normalization in rotation to obtain regressed scores of this construct. As can be seenin Table 4.14, it produced three factors with only nine items (KMO = .786; Bartlett’s test of
Sphericity = 1308.012; p<.001), and the variance explained by the variable was 47.49%. The
first factor was named housing condition, measured by six items with Eigenvalue of 2.893 (α= .688). The second one was labeled as extra-income sources, having an Eigenvalue of 1.221
with a Cronbach’s Alpha value of .408. The last factor was measured by only one item, having
an Eigenvalue of 1.110, and was named bank loan.

Table 4.14: Factor loading of individual socio-economic status
Factors
Item descriptions

Housing

Extra-income Bank

condition

sources

1. Sources of water for your daily use.457

2. Number of bedrooms in your house.496

3. Material of your wall

.607

4. Material of your floor.657

5. Type of toilet you own.543

6. Sources you use to cook your daily meal.592

7. Rooms for rent

.434

8. Lands/stores for rent

.614

9. Used loan recently

loan

.559

Note: Loadings <.40 are suppressed934.4 Chapter summary
The study employed interviews and surveys for data collection and analysis to answer the two
research questions. Quantitative data were collected from PT actors such as schoolteachers,
students, and their parents through a self-reported survey questionnaire covered multiple
dimensions such as school-related factors (types and areas), teachers’ attitudes (perceptions ofpublic school and teaching pedagogical style), and individual-related factors to gain an
insightful understanding about the reasons they continued offering PT to their own students.
Other important dimensions were also observed in students and parents, such as school typeand area, individual and parent-related factors. The survey data were collected through an
online application from 198 schoolteachers and 862 paired students and parents from 12
schools located in four provinces and Phnom Penh. In addition, the study conducted 89
interviews with different educational stakeholders such as schoolteachers, students and parents,
their school principals, POE (vice-)directors, and staff at the policy level. Both data wereanalyzed and reported separately for each research question. Then both findings and results
were combined for discussion.

94

Chapter 5: TEACHERS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PRIVATE TUTORING
This chapter presents schoolteachers’ reasons to continue engaging in private tutoring. The
research methodology included sampling, and data analysis is briefly described before
reporting the study’s findings. The data analysis findings and results from interviews andsurvey were reported separately. Then, all key findings were summarized by the end of thechapter. This chapter addresses the following research questions:
RQ#1: Why did schoolteachers continue to offer private tutoring at Cambodian upper
secondary schools?

5.1 Brief methodology
The specific purpose of this research question was to investigate why upper secondary school
teachers continue to engage in private tutoring in Cambodia by employing a self-reported
survey questionnaire and semi-structured interview to probe the central mechanism of PT
engagement and identify the influential factors of their decision. This chapter aims to observe
schoolteachers’ behavior and mechanism for maintaining their PT.

5.1.1 Samples and data collection
The data to respond to RQ#1 were collected from 198 schoolteachers through a survey
questionnaire and 40 interviews, including different stakeholders from the school level to thepolicy one. The data collection process was done in two different stages. First, the survey data
were obtained from 12 out of 24 selected schools in Phnom Penh and the other four out of six
provinces of Cambodia through online application due to the school closure following the
COVID-19 outbreak. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted through online
applications (e.g., Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Skype, Google Meet, or Zoom), which wasconvenient for the selected informants. We conducted 52 semi-structured interviews in total.
95

Of these, 39 were from schoolteachers to seek the influential factors contributing toward their
PT engagement. Following a previous study by Page (2016, p. 8), nine school principals, three
POE directors, and one independent informant at the policy level were invited for the interview
to gain insight into schoolteacher professional behavior as well as to triangulate the teachers’
responses.
Table 5.1: Demographic information of the informants for interviews
Category

Attribute
Male
GenderFemalePhnom Penh
Area
Urban
Rural
Mathematics
Teachersn = 37 (75.51%)
Sciences
Specialization
Khmer composition
Social sciences
EnglishTutorsType
Non-tutor
Male
GenderFemalePhnom Penh
Principals
Area
Urban
n = 8 (16.33%)
Rural< 5 years
Num. of years in charge
between 5 and 10
Male
Gender(a)
FemalePoEn = 3 (6.12%)< 5 years
Num. of years in charge
7 years
Male
GenderCentral staff(b)Femalen = 1 (2.04%)
Num. of years in charge 8 years
Male
GenderFemale
Total
Phnom Penh
N = 49 (100%)
Area
Urban
Rural
Note: (a)only in urban area; (b)only in Phnom Penh

Frequency
27
10
8
19
10
10
11
7
6
22
15
6
2
2
4
2
3
5
3
2
1
1
1
37
12
11
26
12

Percentage
72.97%
27.03%
21.62%
51.35%
27.03%
27.03%
29.73%
18.92%
16.21%
8.11%
59.46%
40.54%
75%
25%
25%
50%
25%
37.50%
62.50%
100%
66.67%
33.33%
100%
100%
75.51%
24.49%
22.45%
53.06%
24.49%

However, only 49 transcripts could be analyzed because three informants (two non-tutors andone principal) did not return their verified transcript versions to the researcher. Therefore, we

96considered that they declined their information to be used although they had submitted theconsent forms (see Table 4.3).

5.1.2 Data analysis
These two data sets (quantitative and qualitative) were analyzed separately as guided by
Creswell and Guetterman (2019). First, the qualitative data were analyzed to thematize themain reasons for schoolteachers’ engagement in PT. Then the survey data analysis was
conducted. Finally, both results were reported separately regarding the PT phenomenon.

Regarding the interview data, the study employed an inductive approach for content analysis
to code concepts according to the frequency of words or phrases appearing in the transcripts.
The content analysis allows the researcher to gather the data in certain themes and transformthem into a simpler format for readers to understand the findings easily (Fraenkel et al., 2012).
For the data analysis, the interactive model was employed to ensure the enrichment of theinformation or data since this model allows the researcher to move backward and forward
within the four components (see Figure 4.3) (Miles et al., 2014, p. 10; Miles & Huberman,
1994, p. 12). The data were coded for each participant, and the codes were used when a direct
quote was needed. Data coding and categorizing were conducted during the data display andcondensation. Related information in the data was encoded by themes and sub-themes
accordingly. If necessary, the researcher contacted the informants for more information or
clarification, albeit they had already verified the information during the verification stage oftranscripts. As a result, five themes emerged for the reasons to engage in PT, categorized into
three categories. The first category was labeled as system-related category embedded by“shortage of instructional time” and “feeling of fear due to anti-cheating examination.” Thesecond one was named personal-related with two main themes: “teaching specialization” and97

“low salaries.” Third category was feeling of obligation with one theme – “student/parent’s
suggestion.” Regarding the reasons for not engaging in PT, the study unveiled three themes
such as “teaching specialization/group”, “(own)family business” and “work for private
school.” Dealing with reliability of the data, coding agreement or core-recode approach was
employed (see Chapter 3). The agreement between the codings was found to be 86.82% forschoolteacher-tutors’ interviews and 91.05% for schoolteacher-non-tutors’ interviews, 85% for
the POE directors’ interviews, 77.08% for school principals’ interviews, and 90% for theinterview of the staff at the central level (Appendix 9). When the coefficient of the coding
agreement is larger or equal to 70%, the findings are considered reliable (Miles et al., 2014;
Miles & Huberman, 1994). Therefore, this study’s findings were good enough to answer the
study’s intent.

Regarding the survey data, as the outcome variable was coded dichotomously, a Binary
Logistics Regression (Field, 2013; Leech et al., 2005) with Enter Method was employed forthe data analysis to estimate the effects of predictors on the schoolteachers’ decision to supply
PT at Cambodian upper secondary school. To address this, a Block Recursive Model was
employed. The variables included in the regression models were entered in two separated
blocks, as shown in Table 5.2. First, three factors related to “teachers’ attitudes” constructwere entered to determine the total effects of model 1. Then, the other 12 variables were put inmodel 2 to estimate the effects.

Table 5.2: Model estimation for teachers’ choices of PT
Model

Blocks of independent variables included in the regression model for analysis

1(Teachers’ attitudes [3 factors])

2(Teachers’ attitudes) + (School factors + Individual factors [12 factors])

98

Before entering variables into the analysis model, data reduction was performed since thestudy’s data consist of a large scale of items in which multi-collinearity may be an issue. First,
as shown in Table 4.6, Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoring with Varimax
Kaiser normalization in rotation was conducted for factors such as teacher’s attitudes toward
public school, teaching attitude, and teachers’ SES. Second, we performed collinearity
statistics analysis in multiple regression to avoid multi-collinearity by ensuring that none of thevariables had a value of tolerance lower than 0.1 or that of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
higher than 10 (Field, 2013). Table 5.3 exhibits variable descriptions. Its descriptive results
will be explained in the section below.
Table 5.3: Description of variables for private tutoring supply side (n = 198)
Variables
Supply private
tutoring(a)Teachers’ attitudes
Attitude toward publicschool(1 factor)

Measurement
NominalDescription
0 = Not supply PT
1 = Supply PT

Factor scores(b)Teaching attitude(2 factors):• Caring pedagogies• Uncaring pedagogies

Factor scores(b)1 = No idea,
2 = Strongly disagree,3 = Disagree,
4 = Agree,
5 = Strongly disagree
1 = No idea,
2 = Strongly disagree,3 = Disagree,
4 = Agree,
5 = Strongly disagree

School condition construct
School type
NominalSchool area

NominalDemographic construct
GenderNominalTeaching discipline

Nominal

n.
(90)
(108)

Q23

Q24

1 = Higher-SES
2 = High-SES
3 = Medium-SES
4 = Low-SES
1 = Rural area
2 = Urban area
3 = Phnom Penh

(60)
(57)
(32)
(49)
(92)
(46)
(60)

1 = Female
2 = Male
1 = Mathematics
2 = Science subjects
3 = Khmer composition

(76)
(122)
(39)
(77)
(35)

99

Question
Q31

Q1
Q4

Teaching group

NominalQualification

NominalPlace of residence

NominalSocio-economic status construct
Teacher’s SES
Factor scores(b)(2 factors):• Home condition• Extra-income sources
Teacher’s family construct
Bank loan
NominalSpouse’s occupation

Spouse’s education

Note:

NominalNominal

4 = Social subject
5 = English
1 = Social science
2 = Science
3 = Both
1 = Pursuing Bachelor’s degree
2 = Pursuing Master’s degree
3 = Pursuing doctoral degree
4 = High school
5 = Bachelor’s degree
6 = Master’s degree
7 = Doctoral degree
1 = Commuter
2 = Local residence

(28)
(19)
(69)
(85)
(44)
(151)
(47)
(51)
(147)

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q12-Q22

1 = No2 = Yes
1 = Housewife/farmer
2 = Teacher
3 = Government staff (notteacher)
4 = Non-government staff
5 = Business owner
1 = Primary school
2 = Lower secondary
3 = Upper secondary
4 = Bachelor’s degree
5 = Master’s degree
6 = Doctoral degree

(99)
(99)
(28)
(78)
(20)
(20)
(4)
(7)
(17)
(40)
(66)
(20)
-

Q22
Q9

Q10

(a)

Dependent variable(b)

Factor scores obtained from Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoringwith Varimax and Kaiser normalization in rotation, and with an absolute value below .40

5.2 Narrative findings
Descriptively, Table 5.1 illustrated that about 76% of the informants were male, and 24% werefemale. Furthermore, the majority (53.06%) were located in urban areas, followed by rural
areas (24.49%) and Phnom Penh (22.45%), respectively. Specifically, schoolteachers who100were the main informants responding to this RQ were from different teaching specifications.
Of these, 27.03% were in mathematics, and 29.73% were in science subjects, followed by
Khmer composition (18.92%), social science (16.21%), and English (8.11%). Moreover,
59.46% of these respondents were tutors, and 40.54% were non-tutors.

The findings for this research question were reported in two sections – reasons Cambodian
schoolteachers engaged and did not engage in PT at upper secondary school. It should be notedthat the reasons not to engage in PT were reported after the survey result section later in thischapter. The narrative findings were explained by category and themes in detail. It is worth
noting that “category” is referred to as the general code used to group the different main themesof similar codes. Similarly, ‘theme’ contains some corresponding data which explain the sameor similar points. These interrelated data were labeled as “codes.”5.2.1 Reasons to continue engaging in PT
The results of the narrative data analysis unveiled five main themes explaining the reasons that
influenced Cambodian schoolteachers to continue practicing PT. Based on the relevant themes,
these main themes were classified into three main categories, as exhibited in Table 5.4 below.
Each of them was presented with the direct quotes accordingly, and the findings obtained fromother stakeholders such as school principals, POE directors, and central-level staff were used
to triangulate.
Table 5.4: Teachers’ reasons for engaging in PT
Categories

ThemesFrequency(n = 22)

Codes

Systemrelated

Shortage of
instructional
time

22(100%)• We [teachers] have limited time to complete thesyllabus.
• We need to teach many things during school hours,
but time is limited there.

101Teachers’
feeling of fear
(Anti-cheating
examination)

22(100%)

Teaching
specialization

15(68.18%)Low salaries

17(77.27%)

Personal
reasons• Learning [Instructional] time at the public school is
not enough, so we need private classes to continue.
• Not only I but also other teachers, I think, can only
explain lessons and we explain them in detail. Then
we focus on only practicing at private school. This isthe best way to complete all contents on time.
• I explain lessons in detail, but we [students] cannot
practice more since time is limited at public school.
• When reforming the examination, the Ministry
should also increase teaching hours at public schools.
Students cannot learn all lessons at school if we do
not practice private tutoring.
• Reforming the national examination is good, I agree.
However, students will not be qualified enough if we
do not offer private tutoring. They need more time topractice.
• The current national examination is so challenging. If
we do not take time to help them [students] in private
tutoring, they cannot pass because they cannot learn
enough at public school.
• If my subject needs only memorization skills likehistory, geography, and moral science…, I may not
be able to open [offer] private tutoring.
• Without practice, you [students] cannot learn[master] mathematics skills. Unfortunately, theycannot get enough practice at public school due to alack of [instructional] time.
• I believe that students also know that memorization
does not really work in my subject [physics], butmore practice. Moreover, they cannot have enoughpractice at school.
• Private tutoring can give me some additional income,but not much. I would say it can cover my breakfast
and petroleum for my motorcycle.
• Our salaries cannot support our families’ daily needs,
so we can earn some from teaching private tutoring.
Although it cannot fulfill our needs, it can releasesome of this burden.
• We [my family] cannot survive with only salaries
from the government school. Therefore, small
earnings from private tutoring at least can help mewith earning my daily food.
• My wife cannot make any income besides growing
some vegetables around our home. If they do notallow teachers to teach private tutoring, I do notthink we can live with the current

102

Feeling of
obligation

Student’s /Parent’srequest13(59.09%)• Students and parents know that the current
examination is so strict. They fear that they will failif they are not good enough, so they requested us toteach private tutoring classes.
• Students know that passing the current examination
is not easy as before. So, they need time for morepractice. I requested us to teach them [privately].
• Students and parents now feared to fail in their
examinations because they know that learning at
public school is not enough especially exercises[practices].

5.2.1.1 System-related factors
Two main themes were classified in this category. First, the study unveiled that the shortageof instructional time affected schoolteachers’ decision to offer PT to their students at upper
secondary school. All informants from across teaching disciplines repeatedly pointed out thatthe given instructional times at the public school were insufficient for students to gain theintended knowledge and skills for their baccalaureate examination. In addition, the contents tobe taught were cumbersome to complete within the given instructional time. One informant,for example, stated as follows:… However, if we do not teach [offer tutoring], many students may not be qualified
enough for the national examination because, at public school, we have limited[instructional] hours but too much content. I think we [all teachers] have tried ourbest to help them [teach students as much as we can] at public school, but I feel wecannot do as we want. – Urban TT26: Schoolteacher-tutor of physics

In this regard, schoolteachers repeatedly mentioned differentiating points to focus during publicschool and tutoring classes and employed ineffective teaching pedagogies or uncaring
pedagogies when asked about their daily practice to assist students in acquiring the intended
knowledge and skills. A total of 77.27% of the informants explained that they chiefly spent
public-school hours explaining the theories/concepts but offered more practical exercises only103

during the tutoring ones. It was stated, for example, that “I think not only me [who practice thisway of teaching]. During public school, I paid attention to the theory or formula. I explained
them carefully until they understood and practiced some practical examples in the textbooks,[so, I focused on] only practices during tutoring. Sometimes, I just revised theory a little bit
before practicing.” (Phnom Penh TT21: Schoolteacher-tutor of mathematics). However, five ofthem (22.73%) employed hurried teaching to cover all knowledge and skills to avoid being
blamed, albeit knowing that their students could not master those intents of the syllabus. Three
informants from different disciplines, for instance, made this explicit:… [In public school,] I taught a little fast. I knew that they [students] could notunderstand [a lesson] well, but we do not have enough [instructional] time. Although
they could not learn much, they at least could have some knowledge for their selflearning if they could not afford private tutoring. I knew it was not good to do so[cover all contents, but students could not learn well], but if not [doing so], we will be
blamed [by school principal and staff at POE also some students and parents]. – Rural
TT14: schoolteacher-tutor of Khmer composition… [At public school], students do not have enough time to practice. In some months,
we [schoolteachers] cannot even complete the lessons as our plan. … To offer morepractices, we had to speed up on the contents [and vice versus]. It was challenging,but we had to ensure the balance of content and practices. Thus, students who do notwant to take PT or cannot afford PT can still learn on their own. I agree that students
cannot get enough practice at public schools. To be saturated [have enough practiceas well as master knowledge and skill], they need PT. – Phnom Penh TT31:
Schoolteacher-tutor of chemistry

Simply say, we can teach only content at public schools. During the tutoring class, we
review contents briefly or summarize key points, then start practicing those104

[knowledge and skills of the content]. If not do so, we cannot complete the syllabus
on time. – Urban TT18: Schoolteacher-tutor of mathematics

Second, implementing examination reform through promoting an anti-cheating policy during
the baccalaureate examination was found to impact schoolteachers’ continuation to offer PT
due to their feeling of fear, although they remarkably supported this policy. They described
this aspect as having a strong connection with the first sub-themes. All participants acrossschool areas expressed that offering PT was the only way to assist their students in gaining
better knowledge and skills for their baccalaureate examination. One schoolteacher (Urban
TT10: Schoolteacher-tutor of chemistry) expressed his view on this aspect as follows: “Startingto strengthen the examination of Grade 12 is a good idea, but they [ministry] should consider
increasing the number of teaching hours for us too. … [At the public school,] they [students]
could not learn all important points in detail as being prescribed in the Ministry’s syllabus if
we do not offer PT.”

The data obtained from POE and some school principals contradicted schoolteachers’
viewpoints regarding the aspect of the public-school syllabus. Instead, they viewed theinsufficient instructional time as caused by schoolteachers’ lateness. Two school principals(accounted for 25%) included all POE (vice-)directors, and the staff at the central level viewed
the insufficient instructional time and overloaded syllabus as a result of schoolteachers’
lateness or absenteeism. For example, one POE vice-director, coded POE03, described his view:“Not because I am in this position or I am not a classroom teacher, but it is the fact that teachers’
punctuality is zero [poor]. They start their class [teaching session] late but finish it early. I thinkat least 10 to 15 minutes per class have been lost. Then they complained about the imbalance
between contents and [instructional] time.” However, 75% of school principals agreed with105

schoolteachers’ viewpoints, yet they accepted that schoolteachers sometimes came late forclass. For instance, a rural school principal commented that:
It [insufficient instructional time] is true, and teachers always complained [about it].
However, I have no choice but to encourage them to implement what is prescribed in
the syllabus in this position [principal]. … [When I was a classroom teacher ofphysics,] I experienced this [insufficient instructional time] either. – SP03: Rural
school principal

The interview data from these groups revealed that the anti-cheating policy during theexamination increased the demand for PT. One school principal (SP07: Rural school principal)
explained, “I observed that more students take private tutoring now and since the 2014 reform.
They knew that no one but they themselves could make themselves through this current
examination. Money, cheating, and their relatives could not help them.” Albeit the majority ofthem reluctantly corroborated schoolteachers’ comments on the cause of PT growth, 37.5% of
POE (vice-) directors expressed that the lack of self-learning skills of students was the leading
cause when asked the reason for the increase in PT. One informant at POE, coded POE02,
expressed his idea that “We do not support private tutoring, but this is the fact that in this present
moment we are happy to see that students continue studying in private tutoring classes after
their [official] school hours, rather than cheating or paying a bribe. We need more time to train
them to get accustomed to self-learning. When they know how to learn [do self-learning], they
will feel that it [self-learning] is better than [learning at the] tutoring classes.”

5.2.1.2 Teachers’ personal reasons
The study found that schoolteachers’ teaching specialization and low salaries, categorized as
personal reasons, had an impact on the continuation of PT engagement in this study context.
Schoolteachers who specialized in the subject for examination, particularly in mathematics,
106

Khmer composition, and science-related subjects, were more likely to engage in PT than theirpeers in social sciences. 68.18% of the informants explained that they could offer PT since
their subjects required students to practice skills rather than memorization. Consistently,
schoolteachers as tutors expressed PT classes as providing students more opportunities tomaster the prescribed knowledge and skills of the public school’s syllabus. For example, one
informant made this explicit:
As you [moderator] know, mathematics needs more practice than memorization.
Without practice, you cannot master those skills, but at [public] school, they [students]
could have few practices due to limited time. Thus, if our [my] subject requires only
memorization, I may not be able to open [offer] tutoring classes. – Urban TT18:
Schoolteacher-tutor of mathematics

Additionally, the study found that low salaries or insufficient payment impacted the upper
secondary school teachers’ engagement in PT. Around 77% of this study’s participants
continued offering PT before and/or after their public-school hours for supplementary income.
Of these, 64.71% of them explained that the income from PT had a small contribution to their
daily expenses, such as petroleum for motorcycles and petty cash for their kids, when asked
how much they could earn on average per week. Some informants described as follows:
I agreed that offering PT could give me some additional income, but not much. I would
say it can cover my breakfast and petroleum for my motorcycle. – Urban TT26:
Schoolteacher-tutor of physics

We could not earn much, but at least I could cover my [two] kids’ daily expenses[petty cash]. I charged 1,000 riels per hour; however, some students could pay only
500 riels. I have about 10 students in one class, and I taught only two classes threedays per week. – Rural TT16: Schoolteacher-tutor of chemistry107Within the same aspect, 45.45% of informants reported that although they could not earn much,they considered continuing practicing PT because their spouse could not make any extra
income for living. It is, for example, stated that “… [In my family,] I am the only one who
makes a living. Being a teacher, what we can do for supplementary income is only teachingtutoring class, or only being a motor-dub [motorbike taxi] rider.” – Urban TT03:
Schoolteacher-tutor of biology.

5.2.1.3 Feeling of obligation
The interview data analysis showed that PT engagement of schoolteachers was so-called an
on-demand service in this study context. About 59% of this study’s informants explained thatthey offered PT upon the request of students and parents. The study also unveiled that 62.5%
of school principals also requested schoolteachers to offer PT, particularly in rural areas.
Unlike before 2014, students and parents now contact or request us to teach [offer PT].
I think not only for my subject but every subject because I heard some colleagues say
so too. We have to spare one or two hours per week for them because we feel they are
keen to learn, although we do not have enough free time, or we know that we could
not earn much from these [tutoring classes]. Students and parents now fear failure in
the national examination because they cannot cheat. – Phnom Penh TT11:
Schoolteacher-tutor of Khmer composition

I agree that teaching hours at public schools are insufficient to assist students inacquiring prescribed knowledge and skills. Hence, I encouraged my schoolteachers tospare their time at least one hour a day to offer private tutoring classes. If they did nothave time to offer daily, I encouraged them to teach at least one or two days a weekor months before the examination. – SP03: Rural school principal

108

5.3 Survey results
5.3.1 Descriptive and analysis results
Of the 198 schoolteachers responding to the survey questionnaire, 45.45% did not engage inPT, and 54.55% engaged in PT (see Table 5.3). 38.38% were female, and 61.62% were maleschoolteachers. They were from four school types: higher-SES (30.30%), high-SES (28.79%),
medium-SES (16.16%), and low-SES (24.75%), which were classified based on the 2018 dataof the Identity of Poor Household, and three different areas – Phnom Penh (46.47%), urban(23.23%) and rural (30.30%) areas. From the discipline perspective, 38.89% were in science
followed by mathematics (19.70%) and Khmer composition (17.68%), while the rest
respondents were in social science (14.14%) and English (9.60%). Among these, most of themaccounted for 42.93%, taught only the group of students who followed science track, 34.85%
taught social science, whereas 22.22% taught both groups of students.

Similarly, Table 5.5 indicates descriptive statistics (M = mean; SD = standard deviation) of
variables included in the analysis model. Four variables: gender, qualification, place ofresidence, and using bank loans were measured by using dichotomous choice, so calculation
for their mean score could not be performed. It should be informed that codes for“qualification” variable were recorded because the respondents were only in two of six original
categories. Many of them had spouse as schoolteachers (M = 2.29; SD = 1.01). This indicatedthat most schoolteachers had a spouse who was also an income generator. Furthermore, mostof their spouses had completed education till at least upper secondary school and possessed abachelor’s degree.

109

Table 5.5: Descriptive results of variables included in the analysis
Variables
Dependent
Supply PT
Independent• Teacher’s attitude factors
Factor scores: attitude toward public school
Factor scores: caring pedagogies
Factor scores: uncaring pedagogies• School-related factors
School type
School area
• Individual factors
GenderTeacher specialization
Teaching group
Qualification
Place of residence
Factor scores SES: housing condition
Factor scores SES: other income sources
Using bank loan
Spouse’s occupation
Spouse’s educationn

Minimum

Maximum Mean

SD

198

0

1

-

-

198
198
198

-

-

-

-

198
198

1
1

4
3

2.35
1.84

1.156
.863

198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
150
150

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
5
3
2
2
2
5
5

2.55
1.87
2.29
3.50

1.228
.747
1.01
1.015

Before interpreting the results based on the survey data, we started this section with the overall
snapshot of the model fit and a summary of the influences of teachers’ attitudes and individual
factors. The logistic regression illustrated that the total factors about the schoolteachers’
decision to engage in PT at Cambodian upper secondary school, entered in the analysis, could
explain 54.20% of the variance (Cox & Snell R square = .542) as presented in Table 5.6.
Precisely, without having any effect from other factors of individuals, including school-related
factors, Model 1 showed two significant variables, such as teachers’ attitude toward publicschools and caring pedagogies, with 21.5% of total variance explained (Cox & Snell R square= .215). The inclusion of factors from school-related factors as well as individual ones in model
2, the total variance explained expanded to 54.20%. This showed that variables entered inmodel 2 could predict the effects of about 32.7%. However, this inclusion had neutralized110effects on teacher attitude toward public schools in model 1 since its coefficient value was at.50 (p<.05).
Table 5.6: Regression coefficient of factors affecting teachers’ PT engagement

Variables

Model 1
ß(SE)Exp(ß).50(.22)*1.65
1.05(.21)*** 2.85-.19(.25).83

Attitude toward public school
Caring pedagogies
Uncaring pedagogies
School type (ref.: Low-SES)
Higher-SES
High-SES
Medium-SES
School areas (ref.: Phnom Penh)
Rural areas
GenderTeacher specialization (ref.: English)
Mathematics
Science subjects
Khmer composition
Social subjects
Teaching group (ref.: Both groups)
Social science groups
Science groups
Qualification
Place of residence
SES: Home condition
SES: Extra-income sources
Bank loan
Spouse’s occupation (ref.: Business owner)
Housewife/farmer
Teacher
Government staff (exclude Teacher)Non-government staff
Spouse’s education (ref.: Master’s degree)
Primary school
Lower secondary school
Upper secondary school
Bachelor’s degree
Cox & Snell R Square.215
Nagelkerke R Square.286
Note: ref. = reference; * when p<.05; ** when p<.01; *** when p<.001

111

Model 2
ß(SE)Exp(ß).58(.35)
1.79
1.07(.41)**
2.91-.20(.40).823-3.59(1.36)**-2.92(1.06)**-2.72(1.22)*

.03
.05
.07

-.78(.89)-.83(.81).46.31

5.29(1.56)**
3.29(1.17)**2.01(1.15)-19.21(74.48)

197.46
26.89
7.47
.00

-1.36(.97).10(.96)-.74(.67).22(.81).48(.37).86(.45)
1.64(.75)*

.26
1.10
.48
1.25
1.62
2.36
5.15

.66(2.89).80(2.88)
1.16(3.04)-.67(2.92)

1.93
2.22
3.20
.51

3.05(1.56)*
3.39(1.76).128(1.06)
1.30(.96)
.542
.724

21.19
29.73
1.14
3.68

Another factor, namely caring pedagogies, remained statistically significant at 1.05 (p <.001)
and 1.07 (p <.01) in each model, respectively. Of the main factors entered in model 2, four
factors (i.e., school type, teacher specialization, using a bank loan, and spouse’s education)
significantly predicted the effects on Cambodian teachers’ choices to supply PT.

5.3.2 Teachers’ attitudes and teaching
The logistic regression analysis results showed that teachers’ perceptions of public schools andtheir teaching pedagogies impact the choice of PT engagement at Cambodian upper secondary
schools. As shown in Table 5.7, the model overall explained 21.5% (Cox & Snell R Square =.215) of the variance explaining their decision. Two out of three variables included in model
one, namely attitude toward public schools and caring pedagogies, significantly predictedschoolteachers’ decision for PT supply. Specifically, the analysis result showed that teachers
who had low perceptions of public school were more likely to supply PT at the rate of 1.65
times (Exp(ß) = 1.65; p <.05) higher than their peers. To put it simply, schoolteachers who had
positive perceptions of public school’s conditions (i.e., salaries, instructional times, prescribedlearner-based approach, students’ learning, class size) were less likely to offer PT with avariation from 1.07 to 2.54.

Caring pedagogies significantly impacted the schoolteacher's decision regarding supplying PT.
Schoolteachers who reported using effective teaching pedagogies during their public-school
hours were more likely to engage in PT (Exp(ß) = 2.85; p <.001) than their counterparts. When
one-unit increases in their preference to use the pedagogy of care in their teaching, the odds ofthe decision to engage in PT increase by 2.85 times than the schoolteachers who showed lessinterest in using the same.

112

Table 5.7: Significant factors of teachers’ attitude predicted PT engagement
Model 1: Teacher’s attitude

ß(SE)Constant

95% C.I. for Exp(ß)
Lower

Exp(ß)

Upper.201(.189)

-

.00

-

Attitude toward public school.50(.22)*

1.070

1.65

2.537

Caring pedagogies

1.05(.21)***

1.892

2.85

4.287

Cox & Snell R Square.215

Nagelkerke R Square.286

Note: ref. = reference; * when p<.05; ** when p<.01; *** when p<.001

5.3.3 Individual-related factors
By controlling the effects of teachers’ attitudes, model 2 could explain 32.7% of the total
variance explaining teachers’ choice to engage in PT (Cox & Snell R square = .327), as seenin Table 5.8. Among the variables in model 2, school type, teacher specialization, bank load,and spouse’s education significantly predicted whether schoolteachers at Cambodian upper
secondary schools engage in PT. By including the school-related and individual-related factors
in model 2, the effect size of teachers’ attitudes decreased. Although engaging in PT could be
due to teachers’ attitude and their teaching at the public school, school types and individual
factors (particularly teachers’ specialization, bank loan, and spouse’s education) play importantroles in their decision.

First, the study unveiled that school type was a significant predictor of schoolteachers’ PT
engagement in this study context. The results of the analysis indicated that the greater SES ofthe province/city where the schoolteachers work, the more likely they continue to engage inPT (Exp(ß) = .07, p <.05; Exp(ß) = .05, p <.01; Exp(ß) = .03, p <.01) respectively when the
low-SES school type was used as a reference group. Specifically, a one-unit decrease in school
type in which schoolteachers worked generated the decrease in the odds of schoolteachers’
decision to supply PT by a factor of about one time lower than their counterparts.
113Second, teacher specialization in mathematics and science subjects was a significant predictor
of Cambodian upper secondary schoolteachers' engagement in PT. Under this construct, theanalysis highlighted that only schoolteachers of mathematics (Exp(ß) = 197.46, p<.01) andscience-related subjects (Exp(ß) = 26.89, p<.01) had significant impacts on PT engagement
when using English as a reference group. This indicated that schoolteachers whose major wasmathematics or science disciplines were more likely to offer PT than English teachers.
Third, a bank loan was also found to be a significant predictor of their PT engagement choice.
The results exhibited that schoolteachers who were on loan were more likely to continue toengage in PT (Exp(ß) = 5.15, p<.05). A change of a unit of using a bank loan enlarged the odds
of engaging in PT by a factor of 5.15% with variation ranging from 1.19 to 22.37 in the upperbound of the 95% of Confidence Interval.

Table 5.8: Significant factors of individuals predicted teachers’ PT engagement
Model 2: Individual factors

ß(SE)Constant

95% C.I. for Exp(ß)
Lower

Exp(ß)

Upper

1.089(3.77)

-

.00

-

Higher-SES-3.59(1.36)**

.002

.03

.396

High-SES-2.92(1.06)**

.007

.05

.433

Medium-SES-2.72(1.22)*

.006

.07

.727

Mathematics

5.29(1.56)**9.260

197.464210.96

Science subjects

3.29(1.17)**

2.737

26.89

264.133

1.64(.75)*

1.186

5.15

22.3673.05(1.56)*

.997

21.19

450.005

School type (ref.: Low-SES)

Teacher specialization (ref.: English)

Bank loan
Spouse’s education (ref.: Master’s degree)
Primary school
Cox & Snell R Square.327

Nagelkerke R Square.438

Note: ref. = reference; * when p<.05; ** when p<.01; *** when p<.001

114

Finally, the study unveiled that schoolteachers whose spouse had studied or completed
education at primary school were more likely to engage in PT than their peers whose spousehad higher education level, compared to a reference group of spouses with master’s degree(Exp(ß) = 21.19, p<.05). Simply say, when a one-unit increase of schoolteachers’ spouseeducation level generates a decrease of the odds of schoolteachers’ decision to offer PT by
21.19 times.

5.4 Reasons not to engage in private tutoring
Few studies (e.g., Bray et al., 2018) have paid little attention to schoolteachers who did not
engage in PT. However, gaining insight from their perception or reasons could help the study
better understand the PT phenomenon. For ease of understanding, the results from the narrativeand survey were reported side by side in this section.

The results of the narrative data unveiled three reasons, closely associated with their personal
issue, that some Cambodian upper secondary schoolteachers did not engage in PT in,
particularly for Grade 12 students. Among 37 informants as schoolteachers, 15 of them did not
engage in PT. First, Table 5.9 exhibited that most (approximately 67%) did not engage in PT
because their teaching subjects (i.e., social science-related subjects such as history, geography,
moral-civics, and earth environment) required only memorization skills. For example, one
schoolteacher (Urban NT05: non-tutor of moral civics) stated that “students did not needtutoring for my subject because it is simple, and they could learn it by themselves, unlike otherscience subjects or mathematics which they need to deal with exercises and with somechallenging formula.” Moreover, some teachers, particularly English teachers, stated thatstudents had various choices for English PT with other foreign language tutoring115

schools/centers rather than undertaking with them. Second, 60% of them reported working forprivate schools. In the same line, as shown in Table 5.10, 44.4% of the non-tutored respondents
in the survey data reported that students could learn their subject by themselves using
memorization skills, followed by 20% working for private school. Notably, more than 15% ofthem reported that their subjects were not in demand because the group of students they taught
was not required to examine their subjects. Plus, the score earned in their subject, particularly
English, did not impact their result in the baccalaureate examination. For example, twoschoolteachers explained as follows:
Many students in the classes I were teaching did not want to study my subject because
it was not for their examination. So, they study only subjects for their examination
rather than spending their time on this subject. – Phnom Penh NT29: non-tutor ofphysics… Many students think that my subject [English] does not worth for them in their
examination. Also, some have learned it for many years, so they do not need to learn[take private tutoring of English] during this [12th] grade. – Urban NT29: non-tutorof English

Finally, about 32% of interviewees stated they needed time for their family business. For
example, one of these schoolteachers reported owning an English tutoring center. However,very few survey respondents reported having a part-time job or owning a business.

Regarding the reasons for not engaging in PT of schoolteachers who specialized inmathematics, Khmer composition, and science subjects, the common finding was they had
another source of income (e.g., family business) for their daily living. Some also worked as apart-time teacher for a private school or their family owned a small business. One informant

116

(PP NT07: non-tutor of mathematics) stated that “students also asked me to teach them [offer
them private tutoring], but I could not make it as I worked for one private school in the afternoon
and I use my spare time to help my wife’s business at home.”

Table 5.9: Schoolteachers’ reasons for not engaging in PT (interview)
Category

ThemesFrequency(n = 15)

Codes• My subject [history] is simple for students who do
not need to spend money on private tutoring. They
can learn it by themselves.

Teaching

10

specialization(66.67%)• Students need only memorization skills for mysubject [moral civics], unlike other subjects in ascience track.
• If I open a private tutoring class, only a few students
may join because this subject [geography] requires
students to use memorization.
• I do not have time for them because I work for one
private school in the town.
• I need a stable income, so I decided to work for a

Personal
reasonWork forprivate school

9 (60%)

private school rather than offer private tutoring for
my students.
• I teach at a private school, so I do not have time forthem. I asked them to study with another teacher inmy school.
• Students also asked me to offer them private tutoring,but I did not accept it because I need time for myfamily’s business [grocery store].
• I cannot teach them [offer them private tutoring]

Own/Help
familybusiness

7 (31.82%)

because no one can help my wife’s business at themarket.
• Some students wanted me to teach them after school,
but I asked them to study with other schoolteachers
because I have my own school [private language
Centre].

117

Table 5.10: Reasons for not engaging in PT (survey)
Statements (n = 90)

Frequency %1. My subject is not for examination in their track.

4

4.4%

2. Score of my subject is not important in their examination.

10

11.1%

3. Students can learn my subject on their own (memorization).

40

44.4%

4. I need time to help my family business.

7

7.8%

5. I need time for my housework.

8

8.9%

6. I work for a private school.

18

20%

7. I have a part-time job (e.g., NGOs, a private company, etc.)

1

1.1%

8. I have my own business.

2

2.2%

Total 90100%

5.5 Chapter summary
Overall, the study unveiled five key factors impacting schoolteachers to offer PT: shortage of
instructional time, low salaries, teacher specialization, parents’ and school principals’
requests, and feeling of fear due to anti-cheating examination. First, schoolteachers viewedthat the MoEYS’ given instructional time was insufficient for them to complete or cover all
syllabus contents. Some schoolteachers taught only theories during public school and used PT
classes for the practical. However, from the leadership point of view, the study revealed that
schoolteachers’ lateness and absenteeism were the causes of overloaded syllabi. Second, lowsalaries impacted on schoolteachers’ PT engagement. Although RGC has increased theirsalaries substantially, it still could not meet their family’s daily needs due to the simultaneous
increase in living costs. Some schoolteachers who did not engage in PT have other sources ofincome, such as working for private schools and/or from their own/family’s business. Third,
teaching specialization, particularly mathematics and science subjects, was found to impact
schoolteachers’ decision to continue PT for their students because most of their subjects
required more practice to master knowledge and skills, unlike social sciences, which students
could learn on their own through memorization skills. Fourth, schoolteachers felt obligated to118

offer PT due to the increase of higher demand and being requested by their school principal.
Similarly, POE (vice-)director agreed that PT was in place to assist students outside school
hours due to their poor self-learning skills of students. Last, the study unexpectedly found thatanti-cheating examinations ironically impacted schoolteachers to continue PT because students
and parents feared failure in their examinations.

119Chapter 6: STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN PRIVATE TUTORING
This chapter presents reasons students and schoolteachers continue investing in private tutoringat upper secondary schools. The research methodology included sampling, and data analysis isbriefly described before reporting the study’s findings. The findings from the interview andsurvey were reported separately, and all key findings were summarized by the end of thischapter. This chapter aims to address the second research question of this study:
RQ#2: Why did students and parents continue to invest in private tutoring at Cambodian
upper secondary schools?
6.1 Brief methodology
The specific purpose of this research question was to investigate why upper secondary school
teachers continue to engage in private tutoring in Cambodia by employing semi-structured
interviews to probe the central mechanism of PT engagement and a self-reported survey
questionnaire to identify the influential factors of their decision. This chapter aimed to observe
any effects of schoolteacher professionalism on students' and parents’ PT.
6.1.1 Samples and data collection
This study employed both interview and self-reported survey for its design. First, survey data
were collected from 862 pairs of students and parents from 12 upper secondary schools fromdifferent areas (i.e., Phnom Penh, urban and rural) in Phnom Penh capital and four different
provinces. We conducted 60 interviews with PT actors (23 students and 24 parents),
gatekeepers (9 school principals and 3 POE (vice-)directors) and one independent informant.
However, only 52 transcripts could be analyzed because eight had been lost during thetranscript verification process (see Table 4.4). Data were collected online during the pandemic.
School principals, POE (vice-)directors, and staff at policy level were invited for the interview
to gain insight into teacher professionalism and to triangulate students' and parents’ responses.

120

Table 6.1: Demographic information of the informants for interviews
Category

Attribute

Male
FemalePhnom Penh
Area
Urban
Students
Rural
n = 21 (40.38%)
Science
Learning track
Social science
Tutee
Type
Non-tutee
Male
GenderFemalePhnom Penh
Area
Urban
Rural
Primary school
Lower sec. school
Qualification
Upper sec. school
Parents
Master’s degreen = 19 (36.54%)
Housewife/farmer
TeacherOccupation
Non-government staff
Business owner
Yes
Experienced in PT
No
Tutee
Whose kid was
Non-tutee
Male
GenderFemalePhnom Penh
Principals
Area
Urban
n = 8 (15.39%)
Rural< 5 years
Num. of years in charge
between 5 and 10
Male
GenderFemalePoE(a)
n = 3 (5.77%)< 5 years
Num. of years in charge
7 years
Male
GenderCentral staff(b)Femalen = 1 (1.92%)
Num. of years in charge 8 years
Male
GenderFemaleTotal
N = 52 (100%)
Phnom Penh
Area
Urban
Rural
Note: (a)only in urban areas; (b)only in Phnom Penh
Gender121

Frequency
6
15
8
8
5
13
8
12
9
6
13
7
8
4
4
5
8
2
6
5
5
3
15
4
11
8
6
2
2
4
2
3
5
3
2
1
1
1
22
30
18
23
11

Percentage
28.57%
71.43%
38.10%
38.10%
23.81%
61.90%
38.10%
57.14%
42.86%
31.58%
68.42%
36.84%
42.11%
21.05%
21.05%
26.32%
42.11%
10.53%
31.58%
26.32%
26.32%
15.79%
78.95%
21.05%
57.89%
42.11%
75%
25%
25%
50%
25%
37.50%
62.50%
100%
66.67%
33.33%
100%
100%
42.31%
57.69%
34.62%
44.23%
21.15%

The interviews were collected from only eight pairs of students and parents; however, the restof the interviews were also used in the analysis. Although they were in pair as expected, they
still could represent their household as information about their child or parents were asked
during the interview process.

6.1.2 Data analysis
Guided by Creswell and Guetterman (2019), these two data sets were analyzed separately torealize the study’s intent. First, the qualitative was analyzed to thematize students and parents’
main reasons for not engaging in PT. Second, the survey data were analyzed. The findings andresults from both analyses were reported separately and in two sections. First, reasons to engage
in PT obtained from narrative analysis were reported, followed by survey results. Second, thefindings and results for the reasons not to engage in PT were reported side by side.

To analyze the narrative data, the inductive approach for contents analysis by using aninteractive model was employed for the narrative data. This is because the content analysis
allows the researcher to gather the data in the specific themes to make it easy to understand thefindings, while the interactive model offer researcher’s possibility to move within the four
analysis components (i.e., data collection, data display, data condensation, and conclusion)(Fraenkel et al., 2012; Miles et al., 2014; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data were coded foreach participant, and the codes were used when a direct quote was needed. Data coding andcategorizing were conducted during the data display and condensation. Related information in
the data was encoded by themes and sub-themes accordingly. If needed, the researcher
contacted the informants for more information or clarification. The agreement between thecodings was found to be reliable enough to explain the study’s intent. For example, it was
91.08% for tutored students’ interviews and 85.28% for non-tutored students (Appendix 9).

122Regarding the survey data, since the outcome variable, naming students’ PT engagement, wascoded as dichotomous, a Binary Logistics Regression (Field, 2013; Leech et al., 2005) withEnter Method was employed for the data analysis to estimate the effects of predictors on
students’ decision to engage in PT at Cambodian upper secondary school. To address this,block recursive model was used. The variables included in the regression models were enteredin two separated blocks as shown in Table 6.2. First, nine factors were entered to determine
the total effects of model 1. Of these, two factors were related to schools, such as school types
and school areas, and the rest were individual-related factors. Then, with the net effects of thesefactors, eight other family-related factors were put in model 2 to estimate the effects. Table 6.3
displays the variables by each construct and their measurement with the number of respondents
for each.

Table 6.2: Methods of estimation for students’ PT engagement
Model

Blocks of independent variables included in the regression model for analysis

1(School factors [2 factors] + Individual factors [7 factors])

2(School factors + Individual factors) + (Family factors [8 factors])

Table 6.3: Description of variables for students’ PT engagement (n = 862)
Variables
Demand private tutoring(a)Measurement
NominalDescription
0 = Not demand PT
1 = Demand PT

n.
(222)
(640)

School condition construct
School type

NominalSchool area

Nominal1 = Higher-SES
2 = High-SES
3 = Medium-SES
4 = Low-SES
1 = Rural area
2 = Urban area
3 = Phnom Penh

(324)
(290)
(0)
(248)
(324)
(304)
(234)

Demographic construct
GenderNominal

1 = Female
2 = Male

(591)
(271)

123

Question
Student
Q16

Student
Q1

Learning track

Nominal

1 = Science
2 = Social science

Perception of teaching and learning construct
Perception of public-school
Factor scores(b)class (1 factor)

Perception of tutoring class(1 factor)

Factor scores(b)Influence by others (1 factor)

Factor scores(b)Teacher’s attitude (2 factors):• Uncaring pedagogies• Caring pedagogies

Factor scores(b)Socio-economic status construct
Students’ SES (3 factors):
Factor scores(b)• Housing condition• Other income sources• Family loan
Parental construct
Mother’s education
NominalMother’s occupation

NominalMother’s tutoring experience

NominalFather’s education

Nominal

124

(469)
(393)

1 = no idea,
2 = strongly disagree,
3 = disagree,
4 = agree,
5 = strongly disagree
1 = no idea,
2 = strongly disagree,
3 = disagree,
4 = agree,
5 = strongly disagree
1 = no idea,
2 = strongly disagree,
3 = disagree,
4 = agree,
5 = strongly disagree
1 = no idea,
2 = strongly disagree,
3 = disagree,
4 = agree,
5 = strongly disagree

Student
Q2
Student
Q3

Student
Q4

Student
Q5

Student
Q28

ParentQ10-22

1 = Primary school
2 = Lower secondary
3 = Upper secondary
4 = Bachelor’s degree
5 = Master’s degree
6 = Doctoral degree
7 = Post-doctoral
1 = Housewife/farmer
2 = Teacher
3 = Government staff(not teacher)
4 = Non-government
staff
5 = Business owner
1 = No2 = Yes
1 = Primary school
2 = Lower secondary

(341)
(246)
(199)
(52)
(24)
(0)
(0)
(455)
(50)
(54)
(60)
(243)
(620)
(242)
(363)
(146)

Parent Q6

Parent Q8

Father’s occupationNote:

3 = Upper secondary
4 = Bachelor’s degree
5 = Master’s degree
6 = Doctoral degree
7 = Post-doctoral
1 = Housewife/farmer
2 = Teacher
3 = Government staff(not teacher)
4 = Non-government
staff
5 = Business owners

Nominal

(281)
(55)
(17)
(0)
(0)
(373)
(31)
(53)
(67)
(338)

(a)

Dependent variable
Factor scores obtained from Exploratory Factor Analysis using principal axis factoringwith Varimax and Kaiser normalization in rotation, and with an absolute value below .40.

(b)

6.2 Narrative findings
As seen in Table 6.1, about 42% of all interviewed informants were male, and about 58% werefemale. Many of them (44.23%) were located in urban areas, followed by Phnom Penh
(34.62%) and rural areas (21.15%), respectively. Specifically, 40.38% of these were students,and 36.54% were parents who were labeled as the PT actors in this study. In addition, 15.39%of them were school principals, and 5.77% and 1.92% were POE vice-directors and a staff at
the policy level. Moreover, 42.86% out of the total interviewed students were non-tutors. The
findings for this RQ#2 were mainly based on the narrative data from students and parents,
while the findings obtained from gatekeepers and independent informants were used totriangulate accordingly.

6.2.1 Students' and parents’ reasons for undertaking private tutoring
The results of the narrative analysis showed largely consistent reasons to invest in PT between
students and parents as exhibited in Table 6.4.

125

Table 6.4: Display matrix of students and parents’ reasons to invest in tutoring
Category

Personal
reasonSystemrelated

ThemesStudents(n =21)f (%)

Parents(n =19)f (%)

16(76.19)6(31.58)9(42.86)

12(63.16)

21
(100)

14
(73.68)

Learning
track

Lack ofconfidence(Anticheating
examination)

126

Codes
§ Practice inquiry• [As a science track,] I have to learn to solve
exercises differently. So, we cannot focus on
only one style at most or sometimes follow
the samples in the textbook.
• We can only do simple exercises at school,
but more challenging are only in private
tutoring classes.
• ** I was a teacher too, so I know thatteachers can give students excellent exercises
to practice in private tutoring classes while
simple exercises during school.
• ** I want her to practice more after school. I
do not think she can practice enough at
school.
§ Uphold good grades• I think private tutoring class is good, and I canhelp me better than others in my class.
• I believe that taking private tutoring classes is
to build our way to a better grade, so I
undertake it.
• ** I am proud of his result. Thus, I want him
to be even better.
• Unlike before [2014], no one can help us
during the [current] examination, so I feel that
only private tutoring can help me.
• Seeing some good students fail theexamination in previous years makes me evenfearful and less confident in myself.
• We cannot bring any handout to cheat or pay
to cheat now. So, I do not think I can passwithout taking private tutoring.
• ** I always told my daughter to take private
tutoring, although I know she is working hard.
I do not think she can pass unless she takes
more [private tutoring] classes after school.
• ** I believe in him [my son]to gain passgrades because he is a good student, but I
want him to get better grades, not just passgrades.

Shortage of
instructionaltime

18 (85.71)

13(68.42)12 (57.14)

10(52.63)9(42.86)4(21.05)2(9.52)

8(42.11)

Teaching
pedagogies

Unethical
behavior

127• The learning period at public school is short,and we cannot learn enough, so we need to go
to private tutoring classes for more.
• At school, the learning hours are not enoughfor exam subjects, especially mathematics,
physics, and chemistry.
• ** Learning at public school is not enoughbecause the number of learning hours is few
and only half day, but there are many subjects
and lessons each.
• ** I think we [parents] have no other choices
but to send them [kids] to private tutoringclasses to learn more because the time forlearning is less at school. If [we do] not[invest in it], the one who fails is our kid.
§ Uncaring pedagogy (splitting thesyllabus)• Teachers sometimes skipped some parts of
the lessons or explained them briefly.
• Some teachers explained the lesson a bit fastand gave us some homework.
• We could learn only theories or formulas, but
its practices are in private tutoring classes.
• **Since I was a student, we could not learn
all the important parts of the lesson if we did
not go to private tutoring. I still hear thisfrom my son now.
§ Caring pedagogy• Teachers explained lessons clearly, and it iseasy to understand. However, due to limited
time, they could not give more exercises topractice during school hours.
• I think they teach in the same style andexplain the lesson clearly. However, thedifference is that we had fewer practices
during school hours.
• **I heard from my daughter that her teachers
are good and never absent unlike during mytime [when I was a student].
§ Teachers’ pressure• I could learn similar patterns of exercise
during private tutoring classes before the test.
• **I do not blame them [teachers] because
they also need to earn for their family.
However, they should not force students totake private tutoring.

• ** My husband and I are busy earning for
our living. We do not have enough time to
Associatedfollow up with kids. So, we pay for private
friendship9tutoring to keep them busy with learning.
and safety(47.36)• ** I am happy to pay for private tutoring
concerns
classes, so they are busy and do not havetime to associate with some deviant peers.
• ** I think it is okay to pay for his private
tutoring. It helps him gain knowledge andSocietyget along with his classmates.
related
Peer
10
1(a)
influence(52.63)• ** Everyone takes private tutoring, so if shecannot take it like her friends, I think she
may feel upset and sad.
• ** Her grade [Grade 12] is beyond myability to support her at home.
Parental
132(a)• ** I forgot almost everything, especiallyeducation(68.42)mathematics or physics, so I cannot help her
as I used to when she was in primary school.
(a)Note: f = frequency; = students described about what their parent(s) told them; ** quote of parent

6.2.1.1 Personal aspect
The study unveiled that the learning track was one of the main reasons for PT engagement of
Cambodian students at upper secondary school. This theme embedded two sub-themes: “needmore practice” and “uphold good grades”. First, more than 76% of students explained that
their learning track, naming science, required more practice to master the knowledge and skills.
There were limited practices during their public-school hours. In the same line, 31.58% ofparents pointed out that the more practices, the better for their children’s learning track. One
paired student and father, for example, explained that:… [In science track,] thus, I need to do [practice] many exercises, or I could notunderstand and do it well [master the knowledge and skills]. Sure! We could practicein public-school hours, but about one or two [exercises]. – Urban TS07: tutee inscience

I knew that she needed to do well in all subjects to pass, and I do not think thatmemorizing worked for her subject [learning track]. How could we memorize128

mathematics or physics? Therefore, I did not mind paying for her PT because she
could practice again and again in one thing. – Urban PTS07: Parent of tutee inscience

Notably, students following social science who aimed to switch their track at university
undertook PT of subjects that are not the examination subjects for their learning track. They
decided to enroll in social science to maximize their probability of obtaining the pass grade in
their baccalaureate examination. One informant (Rural TS17: tutee in social science), explained
this situation when probed for the reason of their decision as follows:
Moderator: Can you tell me if you do not mind this? Why did you decide to taketutoring in Chemistry? If I am not mistaken, social science students do not take thissubject.
TS17: In fact, I would have liked to take a science track, but I am afraid I cannot pass
the examination if I choose that [science] track. I feel that being in social science iseasier to [get a] pass [grade]. … I want to study to be a medical doctor if I can pass
[Grade 12 baccalaureate examination].

Second, aiming to uphold better performance in their learning track was found to have an
impact on engaging in PT of students in the Cambodian context. Across the learning track,
42.86% of students and 63.16% of parents viewed that PT could assist them to gain better
academic achievement. It stated, for example, that “I think tutoring classes are useful. ... I proud
to be one of the outstanding students in the best class12. I do not think I could be selected in thisclass if I learned only in public schools”’ (Urban TS03: tutee in science). Of these, all nine

12

Many schools assigned best students to one class. Particularly, this school named this class as BS (BestStudent) class.

129

students were science track. However, only five out of their parents expressed the same
viewpoints. Of 63.16%, more than 58% were parents of students in social science track. Twoparents expressed that:… [My son] is smart and is now in BS class. I am proud of him and want him to keep
up with tutoring classes in all subjects. He has been taking tutoring classes since he
was in primary school. – Urban PTS03: Parent of tutee in scienceIf she did not go to PT classes, I do not think she can get 1st or 2nd rank [monthly result]in her class. Since she was in upper secondary school, she was in a top 10 almost every
month. So, I kept paying for PT. – Phnom Penh PTS09: Parent of tutee in social
science

6.2.1.2 System-related aspect
The narrative analysis showed that students and parents continue to invest in PT due to someinternal issues of education such as lack of confidence due to anti-cheating examinations,shortage of instructional time, teaching pedagogies, and teachers’ oppression. First, allstudents and 73.68% of parents pointed out that PT was a critical supplementary source toprepare them to succeed in the baccalaureate examination since the beginning of the anticheating examination policy. For instance, one informant (Rural TS20: tutee in science)
explained her feeling saying “… [The current examination] is so challenging and strict. We
cannot bring any handouts with us, or we automatically fail if we do so. So, the only way tosucceed is to be sure that I am qualified. I think we can learn more by practicing various
exercises in the tutoring classes.” In the same vein, students repeatedly expressed that they
were not confident in their ability to gain the pass grade or obtain their wanted grade in thecurrent examination, particularly when MoEYS implemented the anti-cheating policy. Simply
put, students felt less confident in succeeding the baccalaureate examination without

130

undertaking PT. In the same line, parents explained that they could not trust that their kid could
succeed in the baccalaureate examination if they did not invest in PT. Of these, about 43%
seemed to believe in their children to obtain the passing grade, but they did not trust that they
could get a good grade. Two informants explained their feeling about their kids that:… [Since the examination reform in 2014,] I saw some of my neighbors’ kids failed
and one of my colleagues’ daughters also failed. I always asked my kid to study hardand go to PT. However, she sometimes said to me that ‘do not worry mum. I will
pass’, but I do not trust. – Rural PTS15: Parent of tutees in science… [To me,] she will pass this exam. Her teachers and friends also said same about her
to me. She is a good student in almost every subject. However, I want her to get thegood grade. I do not expect her to get [Grade] A, but B at least C. She told me she has
to get at least Grade B. That is why she kept going to take PT of all subjects. – Phnom
Penh PTS05: Parent of tutees in science

Second, the shortage of instructional time to complete the public-school syllabus was found to
be one of the factors impacting Cambodian students and their parents to continue investing in
PT at upper secondary school. 85.71% of students and 68.42% of their parents consistently
pointed out insufficient instructional time at the public school. They believed this was one ofthe primary causes that their schoolteachers could not explain the lesson in detail. It stated, forinstance, that “… [At the public school,] school hours should be longer. I mean we should
study both morning and afternoon, so there are more hours for each subject. We could not learnmuch as the number of hours are few for each subject, especially mathematics or physics,
chemistry and Khmer composition, I think” (Rural TS15: tutee in science). Similarly, one
parent explained this situation through her experience that:131

I noted that number of learning hours at public school is few and number of lessons ismore. The same issue happened when I was a student, and it is still happening now.
Not only I who think like this but also other parents as well as students they felt same.
I heard my daughter and her friends discussed this too. However, the tests in the[baccalaureate] examination cover everything, so if we do not pay for PT, ourchildren may fail. – Urban PTS01: Parent of tutee in science

Third, the narrative data unveiled that teaching pedagogies were also found to have an impact
on students’ and parents’ PT engagement. The findings depicted that both uncaring and caring
pedagogies13 influenced their PT engagement. However, more informants consistently pointed
out the uncaring pedagogies was the cause of their decision. The study found that
schoolteachers differentiated their focus between public school and tutoring classes. On the
one hand, as seen in Table 6.4, more than 57% of students and 52% of parents claimed that
their schoolteachers employed uncaring pedagogies in the public school. Although teaching at
public schools did not meet their satisfactory level, they reluctantly blamed their schoolteacher
but the shortage of learning hours at the public school. Two informants explained this situation:… [At only public school,] … I still think that teachers also cannot teach or explain
us the way we want, because they have to follow their plan. So, they explained to us
briefly and gave us some practices. … I do not blame them because [number of]learning hours is not enough for them to help us acquire enough knowledge for theexamination. – Rural TS15: tutee in science… [At public school,] teachers taught us fast [hurried teaching], so it was not easy tounderstand if we did not go to tutoring classes. I think only tutoring classes could fillin this gap, or we may fail the examination. – Urban TS07: tutee in social science

13

See Table 4.5 for their meanings.

132

On the other hand, approximately 43% of students and 21% of parents expressed that theschoolteacher gave more care in teaching during public school hours, especially giving precise
explanations and making lessons easy to understand. However, they agreed with their peersthat they could practice a few simple exercises. One student explained their point:
Most teachers are good and better now than my teachers in Grades 9 or 10. Their
explanation was clear and easy to understand. They explained to us repeatedly until
we all understood before they continued to the next stage. … I would say it [the wayof teaching] was very same between public school and tutoring hours. However, thedifference was during tutoring classes, we learned [practiced] more exercises, and welearned more theory/formula and practiced only simple exercises in the textbook. –Phnom Penh TS12: tutee in science

Last, the narrative result also indicated that some students continued to undertake PT due totheir schoolteachers’ oppression or unethical behavior. Only about 10% of students in thisstudy and about 42% of parents, particularly in urban areas and Phnom Penh, expressed that
their schoolteachers taught the test items in advance and made fun of students who did notundertake PT before the class during the public-school hour. An informant described thissituation as follows:[In my mathematics tutoring class,] I could learn some exercises before theexamination day. Although those exercises were not exactly the same as on the test,
their patterns were the same. Thus, I could do well with more confidence. No! I could
not cheat, or I was given zero marks. Of course, we could when I was in Grade 9 or 8.
We were tutees; we could check a little bit if we forgot how to solve those exercises.
However, I think different teachers may act differently. I do not think we can do it
now. – Phnom Penh TSS 09: tutee in social science1336.2.1.3 Society-related aspect
The study showed that child’s associated friendship and safety concerns, peer influence, andparents’ education influenced parents’ decision to investigate children’s PT. Parents rather
than the students mostly addressed this aspect-related issue. First, with the concern for theirchildren’s safety and their associated friendship, more than 47% of parents believed thatinvesting in PT could keep their children busy and have more homework to practice. Of these,
66.67% expressed their concern with their children’s bad associations since they did not haveenough time to associate with them due to their business on the one hand. However, 55.56%
pointed out the concern about their daughter’s safety, especially when they returned home inthe late evening. One parent narrated her concern as follows when asked whether she had anyother concerns before closing the interview:
Honestly, no one wanted to spend more money on what we were supposed to give forfree. However, one thing we wanted to see was our children’s bright future, so we had
to struggle with all expenses for their learning [tutoring]. More than gaining
knowledge, they were busy all day with their learning, so we were not worried about
their friendship association. … At the same time, we were worried about his safety.
He came back home late after his tutoring classes. Sometimes, my husband went towait for him on the main road because our home is on a small road about 2 or 3 km
away from that main road. – Urban PTS03: Parent of tutee in science

Second, about 53% of them viewed sending their children to PT as motivation because thisinvestment could help them get along with their peers at school. It is stated that “… many ofher friends undertook PT, so she must feel different from others if she could not take PT. …
When she was in primary school, she used to tell me that she wanted to be as smart as her
friends … because they went to tutoring classes.” (Urban PTS02: Parent of tutee in social
science).

134

Last, more than 68% of parents, regardless of their educational attainment, continued to invest
in their children’s PT because they could not provide them with any academic support as theyused to when their children were at the lower levels (i.e., primary school). For example, one
informant explained that ‘… I could not help him when he could not work on any problem
solving because I forgot almost everything, especially his Grade-12 mathematics and physics.
So, he can get help from tutors or his friends at the tutoring classes’ (Urban PT03: Parent of
tutee in science).

6.3 Survey results
6.3.1 Descriptive results
Table 4.10 indicates descriptive statistics (M = mean; SD = standard deviation) of variables
included in the analysis model. As dependent variables, gender, learning track, and mother’s
PT experience were dichotomously measured, so their mean score could not be performed.
However, of 862 participants, Table 6.3 indicates that 25.75% were non-tutees and 74.25%
were tutees. While 68.56% were female and 31.44% were male students. From the learning
track perspective, 54.41% of the participants followed a science track, and 45.59% were insocial science. Among those students, 71.93% of their mothers reported having no experiencein taking PT while 28.07% experienced opting for PT during their schooling. Regarding theschool-related factors, none of this group of participants was from a medium-SES school type.
Also, 37.59% were from higher-SES schools, and 33.64% and 28.77% were in high-SES andlow-SES one, respectively. Of them, 37.59% were in rural areas, while 35.27% were in urban
areas, followed by 27.14% in Phnom Penh.

Table 6.5 explains that the respondents’ education level of mothers and fathers was between
primary school and master’s degrees with (M = 2.05; SD = 1.08) and (M = 2.10; SD = 1.09),

135

respectively. These descriptive results explained that the majority of them experienced basic
education. Similarly, majority of mother and father were housewife/farmer and teachers as wellas government staff (M = 2.52; SD = 1.77) and (M = 2.96; SD = 1.85) respectively.

Table 6.5: Descriptive results of variables included in the analysis
Variables
Dependent
Demand PT
Independent• School factors
School type
School area
• Individual factors
GenderLearning track
Factor scores: perception of public school class
Factor scores: perception of tutoring class
Factor scores: influence by others
Factor scores: teachers’ uncaring pedagogies
Factor scores: teachers’ caring pedagogies• Parent-related factors
Factor scores SES: home condition
Factor scores SES: other income source
Factor scores SES: using bank loan
Mother’s educational attainment
Mother’s occupation
Father’s educational attainment
Father’s occupation
Mother’s tutoring experiencen

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

862

0

1

-

-

862
862

1
1

4
3

2.20
1.90

1.22
.798

862
862
862
862
862
862
862

1
1
-

2
2
-

-

-

862
862
862
862
862
862
862
862

1
1
1
1
1

5
5
5
5
2

2.05
2.52
2.10
2.96
-

1.076
1.772
1.094
1.848
-

The logistic regression analysis exhibited that the total factors related to students’ choice toundertake PT at Cambodian upper secondary school could explain 55.1% of the variance (Cox& Snell R square = .551), as shown in Table 6.6. To be specific, without having any effectfrom other factors of individuals, including school-related factors, model 1 indicated four
significant variables such as learning track, students’ perceptions of public school, being
influenced by others, and teaching pedagogies, namely uncaring and caring pedagogies with

136

53.2% of total variance explaining students’ decision (Cox & Snell R square = .532). Genderand school-related factors (i.e., school type and area) did not significantly impact Cambodianstudents’ PT engagement. With the net effects of school and individual-related variables(model 1), the inclusion of the family-related factors (model 2) increased the value to 55.1%(Cox & Snell R square = .551). As seen in Table 6.6, model 2 exhibited that the mother’s
education (primary and lower secondary school), mother’s occupation (non-government staff),and mother’s PT experience were significant predictors of students’ PT engagement.
Table 6.6: Regression coefficient of factors affecting students’ PT engagement
Variables
School type (ref.: Low-SES)
Higher-SES
High-SES
School area (ref.: Phnom Penh)
Urban areas
GenderLearning track
Perception of public-school class
Perception of PT class
Influenced by others
Uncaring pedagogies
Caring pedagogies
SES housing condition
SES other income sources
SES family loan
Mother’s education (ref.: Master’s degree)
Primary school
Lower sec. school
Upper sec. school
Bachelor’s degree
Mother’s occupation (ref.: Business owner)
Housewife/farmer
Teacher
Government staff (not teacher)Nongovernment staff
Father’s education (ref.: Master’s degree)
Primary school
Lower sec. school
Upper sec. school
Bachelor’s degree

Model 1
ß(SE)Exp(ß)

Model 2
ß(SE)Exp(ß).16(45).25(.38)

1.17
1.28

-.16(.56)-.06(.43).85.94.36(.38)-.60(.32)-.69(.29)*
1.80(.30)***.38(.25)
2.74(.33)***.80(.15)***-.62(.14)***

1.426
.55
.50
6.07
1.46
15.51
.45
.54

.38(.45)-.67(.36)-.79(.33)*
1.95(.36)***.41(.27)
2.98(.38)***.95(.17)***-.72(.15)***.18(.22).37(.25).17(.27)

1.46
.51
.45
7.03
1.51
19.68
.39
.49
1.19
1.45
1.19

3.28(1.49)*
3.00(1.46)*
1.56(1.45)
2.63(1.56)

26.59
20.11
4.76
13.84

.234(.45).40(.91).52(.818)
1.86(.74)*

1.26
1.49
1.68
6.41

-1.3(1.54)-.61(1.53)-.29(1.55)-.59(1.60)

.28
.55
.75
.56

137

Father’s occupation (ref.: Business owner)
Housewife/famer.30(.42)
1.35
Teacher.88(1.14)
2.40
Government staff (not teacher).36(.75)
1.44
Nongovernment staff.99(.77).37
Mother’s PT experience
1.16(.42)**
3.20
Cox & Snell R Square
.532
.551
Nagelkerke R Square
.781
.810
Note: ref. = reference group; PT = private tutoring; * when p<.05; ** when p<.01; *** when p<.001

6.3.2 School and individual-related factors
The results of this logistic regression analysis showed that individual-related factors
significantly impacted Cambodian students’ PT engagement. As indicated in Table 6.7, themodel explained 53.2% of the total variance (Cox & Snell R Square = .532). The significant
factors predicting students’ PT investment were learning track (Exp(ß) = .50), students’
perceptions of public-school classes (Exp(ß) = 6.07), being influenced by others (Exp(ß) =15.51), and teaching pedagogies such as uncaring (Exp(ß) = .45) and caring ones (Exp(ß) =.54). First, Cambodian students who followed science track were more likely to invest in PT at
the rate of one-half time than their peers who in social science one (Exp(ß) = .50, p <.50).
Second, students who perceived that teaching and learning at public school were not goodenough nor in good learning condition tended to opt for PT. They were more likely to take PT
at a rate of 6.07 times higher than their peers (Exp(ß) = 6.07, p <.001). Third, the analysis
results indicated that students’ decisions to engage in PT were significantly impacted by otherpeople around them, such as peers and their parents (Exp(ß) = 15.51, p <.001). Statisticallyspeaking, the odds of their decision increased by more than 15 times if there was a one-unitchange in their perceptions of being influenced by their peers and parents. Finally, teachers’
teaching pedagogies were significant predictors of students' demand for PT at Cambodian
upper secondary school. The analysis highlighted both uncaring pedagogies and caring
pedagogies had significant impact on students’ decision for PT (Exp(ß) = .45, p <.001; Exp(ß)

138

= .54, p <.001) respectively. The results indicated that students continued with PT when theyfelt that the teaching at public school was not good enough to prepare them for their
examinations.
Table 6.7: Significant individual-related factors predicted students’ decision to demand PT
Model 1: individual-related factors

ß(SE)Constant

95% C.I. for Exp(ß)
Lower

Exp(ß)

Upper

5.16(.81)***

-

.00

-

Learning track-.69(.29)*

.283

.50

.891

Perception of public-school class1.80(.30)***

3.372

6.07

10.923

Influenced by others

2.74(.33)***

8.121

15.51

29.616

Uncaring pedagogies.80(.15)***

.339

.45

.598

Caring pedagogies-.62(.14)***

.412

.54

.698

Cox & Snell R Square.532

Nagelkerke R Square.782

Note: * when p<.05; ** when p<.01; *** when p<.001

6.3.3 Family-related factors
Table 6.8 indicates that the model overall explained 0.19% of the variance explaining students’decision to demand PT (Cox & Snell R Square = .019). Among the key variables, mother’s
education, mother’s occupation, and mother’s PT experience were found to be significant
predictors of students’ PT engagement in this study context. Regarding mother’s education, a
student whose mother attained only primary education and lower secondary education was
more likely to invest in PT when a reference group was a mother with a master’s degree. If a
student with a mother completed primary school and lower secondary school, their probabilityof opting for PT increases by 26.59 times and 20.11 times higher than their peers whose
mothers had a master’s degree (Exp(ß) = 26.59, p<.05; Exp(ß) = 20.11, p<.05) respectively.
Among mothers’ occupations, students with a non-government staff mother were more likely
to undertake PT than their peers whose parents are business owners. Statistically, if students
had a mother working as a non-government staff, their probability of taking PT increases by139

6.41 times higher than their peers (Exp(ß) = 6.41, p<.05), with variations ranging from 1.52
and 27.09. One family-related variable that significantly impacted students’ decision for PT
engagement was the mother’s PT experience during schooling. It should be noted that thisvariable was measured dichotomously. Specifically, a change of one unit of a mother’s PT
experience increased in odds of students opting for PT by a factor of 3.20 times (Exp(ß) = 3.20,
p <.01), with variation ranging from 1.41 to 7.26 in the upper bound of the 95% of CI.
Table 6.8: Significant parent-related factors predicted students’ PT engagement
Model 2: parent-related factors

ß(SE)Constant

95% C.I. for Exp(ß)
Lower

Exp(ß)

Upper.968(1.70)

-

.00

-

Primary school

3.28(1.49)*

1.449

26.59

487.91

Lower sec. school

3.00(1.46)*

1.152

20.11

350.93

Non-government staff

1.86(.74)*

1.516

6.41

27.087

Mother’s PT experience

1.16(.42)**

1.406

3.20

7.258

Cox & Snell R Square.019

Nagelkerke R Square.029

Mother’s education (ref.: Master’s degree)

Mother’s occupation (ref.: Business owner)

Note: ref. = reference group; PT = private tutoring; * when p<.05; ** when p<.01

6.4 Students who opted out of private tutoring
Of the 21 students selected for the semi-structured interviews, nine did not undertake PT (seeTable 6.1). The narrative data analysis found the reasons that they decided to opt out of PT was
related to their personal issues, which were thematized in four main themes, as shown in Table
6.9. Of these four reasons, “the distance from home to school including personal safetyconcern’ was identified as the primary reason, followed by the fact that their ‘family need their
help in either housework or a small business at home”. Table 6.9 exhibited that more than 77%
and 55% of them opted out of PT for these two reasons, respectively. In the same vein, 87.5%
and 77% of parents who participated in the interviews reported the same. For example, one
student said, “I could not make my time for it [mathematics tutoring classes] because I need to140go back home early. The way to my home is quiet” (Rural NTS19: non-tutee in social science).
In addition, about 33% of them reported they could learn most of the subjects in the learning
track by themselves as those subjects required more memorization skills. Also, a relatively
similar percentage of students and parents reported that their families needed them to help
make a living. However, all of them wished to undertake PT, particularly mathematics, if they
could make it because it could benefit them for their baccalaureate examination.
Table 6.9: Reasons not to invest in PT (Interview)
Category

Personal
reasons

ThemesStudents(n = 9)f (%)

Parents(n = 8)f (%)

Homedistanceand safetyconcern

7 (77.78)

7 (87.5)

Helphousework/homebusiness

5 (55.56)

6 (75%)

Learningtrack

3 (33.33)-

Support forliving2 (22.22)

3 (37.5)

Codes• My home is far, and it is so quiet on the way,especially in the evening.
• I dare go back home alone after [private
tutoring] class, and no one in my family cancome to pick me up if I take private tutoring.
• ** It is not good to let him study until that lateevening. I am afraid that he may be in trouble
when riding back home.
• ** I want her to study [take private tutoring]
too, if she were a man.
• I must help my mother prepare stuff and close
her shop at the market every evening. She
wanted me to study too, but I cannot let her dothat [close shop] alone because some stuff isheavy.
• I need to help my mom early because of her
health issue.
• ** Currently, she is the one who helps prepare
food for family members because others and I
finish work [at the factory] very late, orsometimes we were asked to work overtime.
• I think I could learn most of my subjects forthe examination on my own except
mathematics.
• I would like to take only [private tutoring of]mathematics if I could because subjects forsocial science are related to lesson[memorization], not calculation.
• I worked for one farm near my home after
school to help my family survive because myfather is disabled.
• ** I pity him, but I have no choice but to ask
him to work for additional income. I could
earn only from hand to mouth.

Note: f = frequency; ** quote of parent141

Of 862 students who responded to the self-reported survey, 222 reported opting out of PT (seeTable 6.3). They were also asked to select one of the five-scale statements, ranging from no
idea to absolutely agree, about why they decided not to take PT during their Grade 12. The
original five scales in the questionnaire were combined into three categorical responses andcalculated in percentage, as indicated in Table 6.10. The scale of “absolutely agree” and“agree” and “absolutely disagree” and “disagree” were computed and labeled as agree anddisagree.
Table 6.10: Reasons not to invest in PT (Survey)
Agree

No idea

Disagree

f (%)

f (%)

f (%)

1. My family cannot afford PT expenses.

109(49.1)

19(8.56)

94(42.34)

2. I am in social science track, so I do not need PT.

104(46.85) 19(8.56)

99(44.59)

3. I can do well in all examination subjects on my own

72(32.43)

4. I need time to support my family’s business.

106(47.75) 20(9.01)

96(43.24)

5. I need to me to help with my mother’s housework.

151(68.02) 18(8.11)

53(23.87)

6. I need to earn for living.

86(38.74)

22(9.91)

114(51.35)

7. My home is far from school.

114(51.35) 16(7.21)

92(41.44)

8. I do not have my own transport, so I cannot go for PT.

80(36.04)

13(5.86)

129(58.11)

9. Teaching at a public school is good enough for me.

125(56.31) 21(9.46)

76(34.23)

10. Baccalaureate examination result is not important to38(17.12)15(6.76)

169(76.13)

28(12.61)

14(6.31)180(81.08)

48(21.62)

22(9.91)

152(68.47)

Statements (n = 222)

24(10.81) 126(56.76)

me.
11. I do not like the teacher tutoring the subject I want tolearn.
12. I will not go to university, so I do not need PT.
Note: f = frequency

Table 6.10 above indicated that there were six common reasons that students decided not toundertake PT. About 68% of the respondents reported they could not undertake PT as theyneeded spare time to help do household chores. Similarly, about 45% spent their time helping
their family business after public school. Furthermore, around 51% opted out of PT because
their home was far from school, while less than 50% pointed out their family's economic
142

constraint in paying for PT. Regarding academic concerns, about 47% of the informant
reported they did not need to take PT because they followed social science track. Similarly,
around 56% chose not to take PT since they thought the teaching at public school was goodenough for them. In short, the survey results largely corroborated the narrative findings, exceptthat their family SES and their satisfaction in public school teaching were found through thesurvey results.

6.5 Chapter summary
This chapter presents why Grade 12 students and their parents continue investing in PT. The
study yielded key findings: schoolteachers’ uncaring pedagogies and oppression in school,
their learning track, and feeling of fear of failure due to the anti-cheating examination.
Additionally, peer influence and the inability to provide academic support at home were foundto be reasons only for parents to continue investing in PT for their children. First, students
continued with PT for the core examination of their learning track due to teachers’ uncaring
pedagogies during school hours. Therefore, they viewed that PT could assist them in practicing
more. Second, schoolteachers’ pressure impacted students, especially parents, to invest in PT
for their children. Third, this study observed the learning tracks and PT rather than observing
the percentage as the previous studies did. The study unveiled that students’ learning track
significantly impacted their decision to undertake PT. Both data analysis consistently revealed
that students in science were more likely to undertake PT than their peers in social science.
However, some students in social science who were going to switch their track at university
also invested in PT of subjects which are not for their baccalaureate examination. Fourth, thestudy unpredictably found that anti-cheating examinations created fear among students andparents and urged them for PT. Parents and students invested in PT to ensure adequate
knowledge and skills to minimize their risk of failure. Fifth, specifically from parents’perspectives, the narrative findings yielded that parents viewed investing in PT through143

receiving the loan as the key motivation to help their children to feel along with and keep up
with their peers regardless of their financial issues. Last but not least, parents, regardless ofeducational attainment level, admitted that they could not provide academic support at home,so they decided to invest in PT as a substitute choice.

144

Chapter 7: DISCUSSION
Briefly, the study was conducted to answer to two research questions using both narrative andsurvey approach. The narrative data were collected from 89 interviewees (37 schoolteachers,
21students, 19 parents, eight school principals, three POE (vice-)directors, and one staff at thepolicy level) while the survey data were obtained from 862 paired students and parents and 198
schoolteachers. Both research questions yielded a number of findings and results in achieving
one main purpose – to gain insightful understanding the reasons Cambodian schoolteachersand students continued to engage in PT at upper secondary school. This chapter presents anddiscusses the findings and results of both research questions together. First, this chapter
summarizes all key findings and results of each research question. Then, those key findings are
discussed with the previous studies’ findings, including the secondary sources and media
reports. Next, reasons why some schoolteachers and students did not engage in PT in this study
context were also reported before the chapter summary was made to close the chapter.

7.1 Summary of key findings
This study was designed to investigate the reasons PT remained in the demand among
schoolteachers and students, aiming to answer to the main research question: Why
schoolteachers and students and their parents still engage in private tutoring at Cambodian
upper secondary school? The study limited its focus to only the secondary education inparticularly Grade 12. The study employed both interview and survey data for its datacollection and analysis to answer to two research questions. Through the analysis and bothnarrative and survey data, the study found some key findings accordingly as follows:•

Regarding the first research question, aiming to gain insight into the reasons
Cambodian schoolteachers continued to offer PT to their Grade 12 students at upper
secondary school, the study could lead to an insight that overloaded syllabi with145

insufficient instructional time and low salaries have still been considered as the reasonsfor PT engagement of the schoolteachers. In addition to this, challenging level of
examination of mathematics and science subjects and feeling of obligation toward therequest of students and parents were the key factors impacting their PT engagement.
In the same line, some schoolteachers did not engage in PT because their subjects did
not require students to do more practice to gain adequate knowledge and skill but only
memorization skills. Moreover, engaging in other income-generating activities such as
working for a private school and owning a small business at home was found as reasonsfor some schoolteachers not providing PT.
•

The study yielded some key findings in response to the second research question on
why students and parents continued investing in PT at Cambodian upper secondary
schools. Schoolteachers’ differentiation of the teaching pedagogies between publicschool and tutoring class and their oppression has still influenced students and parents
to invest in PT. The study also unveiled that they continued to undertake PT due to theirlearning track (science in particular), and challenging examination. Moreover, peer
influence and inability to offer academic support at home impacted some parents tocontinue investing in PT for their children. However, home distance, being required tosupport housework and family business, and following a social science track were thereasons some students opted out of PT in this study.

Overall, in response to the main research question, seeking to gain insightful understanding on
why both schoolteachers and students continued demanding PT in Cambodian upper secondary
school, the findings were discussed from three aspects: education system, personal, andsocietal.

146

7.2 Education system aspects
Some reasons which caused PT to remain in demand for both schoolteachers and students andtheir parents were some issues in the education system itself, such as teaching pedagogies andsyllabus and anti-cheating examination policy.

7.2.1 Teaching pedagogies and syllabus
First, schoolteachers’ uncaring pedagogies were the influential factors impacting students toundertake PT. Additionally, employing uncaring pedagogies during public-school hours was
associated with insufficient instructional time to complete the school syllabus. Bothschoolteachers and students, including their parents, viewed PT classes as expanding theiropportunity to complete and learn all syllabus content and gain adequate knowledge and skills
for their baccalaureate examination. As evidence, around 57% of the interviewed student
pointed out teachers’ uncaring pedagogies impacting their decision to continue undertaking
PT. Similarly, the survey result exhibited that a one-unit increase in their perceptions shows anincrease of about 6.07 times their possibility to continue PT (Exp(ß) = 6.07), with the variation
ranging from 3.37 to 10.92 of 95% of CI (see Table 6.7). Moreover, almost of students andschoolteachers addressed the issue of insufficient instructional time. In this regard, it could be
implied and added to Brehm et al.’s (2012) study with the basic education level that PT in
Cambodia functions as not only the continuation of the school syllabus but also
supplementation of what had missed during the public school, particularly practice theknowledge and skills for their baccalaureate examination in this study. Additionally, thesefindings were aligned with the previous studies (see Bray et al., 2018; Brehm & Silova, 2014;
Hallsén & Karlsson, 2019): PT helps expand the instructional time of the public school,
including increasing time to practice the prescribed knowledge and skills, and building revisionskills as well as preparing students for baccalaureate examinations.

147

Although both schoolteachers and students repeatedly reported insufficient instructional time,some school principals and the POE (vice-)director did not support it. They believed this issue
was caused by schoolteachers’ lateness and absenteeism, as stated by Bray et al. (2016).
Additionally, some studies (e.g., Bray, 2013b; Bray et al., 2016, 2018; Brehm & Silova, 2014;
Dawson, 2009; Guill et al., 2021; Liu & Bray, 2020b) found that employing uncaring
pedagogies during public school was a schoolteachers’ trick to blackmail their students into
undertaking PT with them for supplementary income.

Unexpectedly, the narrative finding of both students and parents and survey results fromschoolteachers conveyed that some of them engaged in PT because of caring pedagogies (seeTable 6.4 and 5.7). From a glance at the perspective of teaching pedagogies, it was likely tosignal a positive change in terms of teaching attitude during public school teaching.
Consistently, MoEYS (MoEYS, 2018c) claimed that the current education reform brought
positive behavior changes in both students’ learning and teachers’ teaching in public schools.
However, this study qualitatively unveiled that employing caring pedagogies was one of themarketing strategies schoolteacher-tutors used to maintain their supplementary income.
Schoolteachers were found to offer detailed explanations, mainly one theory or formula, andaccepted students’ questions, yet they offered limited practices. For example, it stated, “Myteacher [of chemistry] explained the lessons very well and easy to understand. … Due to limited
time, he could not provide us with more exercises to practice, so I went to his tutoring classes
to continue.” (Urban TS01: tutee in science). This could imply that schoolteachers tended to
split the syllabus by using public-school hours as the theoretical class and practical ones for PT
classes through using PT as an additional time for practice (e.g., Bray et al., 2018; Brehm &Silova, 2014; Hallsén & Karlsson, 2019; Khaydarov, 2020). Additionally, it could be explainedthat abusing authority through uncaring pedagogies or unethical behavior to ensure

148supplementary income did not seem to work because the current education reform took away
the influences of schoolteachers on the students’ pass/fail grades on the baccalaureate
examination (Soeung, 2021a).

7.2.2 Anti-cheating examination
Implementing the anti-cheating examination policy was ironically found to contribute to the
expansion of PT. Although all participants accepted this current practice as an equitable
opportunity, they expressed their worries about failure. Narrative data showed that all
schoolteachers and students, including about 74% of parents, expressed this concern. They
viewed PT offered them more opportunities and instructional time to practice and gain
adequate knowledge and skills for their baccalaureate examination. Similarly, POE and school
principals agreed that PT prepared students to succeed in that baccalaureate examination
because Cambodian students lacked self-learning skills. This could imply that the publicschool's quality of teaching and learning was not good enough to prepare students for thebaccalaureate examination (Bredenberg, 2022; Brehm & Silova, 2014b). Therefore, students
and parents invested both time and money in PT to maximize their chances of gaining a passing
grade.

It is worth highlighting that Cambodia’s MoEYS first implemented this policy in 2014, aiming
to ensure only qualified students pass and to eliminate all cheating and corruption (MoEYS,
2019f; Royal Goverment of Cambodia, 2007). Cheating and corruption have long been
criticized in Cambodian society (see Francis, 1994; Leng, 2015; Maeda, 2019). Since 2014,
the media have often reported the positive impacts of this policy (e.g Koyanagi, 2017; The
Guardian, 2014). However, Everett and Kaing (2014) reported that improving the quality of149

education and increasing teachers’ salaries were in need, although about 96% of their samples
agreed with the anti-cheating examination policy.

7.3 Personal aspect
In this aspect, factors such as teachers’ and students’ specialization/learning track and family
SES were found to impact continuing PT in this study.
7.3.1 Teachers’ specialization and students’ learning track
Schoolteachers and students who specialized in science (track), including mathematics, werelikelier to engage in this study. Both narrative and survey results consistently unveiled this fact.
These findings were aligned with the findings of the local studies (e.g., Bray & Bunly, 2005;
Marshall & Fukao, 2019) and that of studies in other contexts (e.g., Kuwait (Alazmi & Alazmi,2020), Hong Kong (Bray & Kwok, 2003), and Malaysia (Kenayathulla, 2015)): mathematics
and science subjects, as well as English, were popular tutoring subjects among the students.
Contextually, Bray and Bunly (2005, p. 76) evidenced that due to the popularity of PT, they
impacted Cambodian’s decision to participate in their teaching profession. Adding to this, theunderstanding could be even clearer from the viewpoint of current education reform. The
examination subjects between science and social science students were differentiated not onlyin subjects but also in weightage after the 2014 reform (see Table 2.4). This contributed to PT
engagement among students and schoolteachers in science and mathematics because their tests
are very challenging compared to social science track (Kao & Shimizu, 2020). As indicated in
Figure 4.1, students in science track faced more difficulty obtaining the passing grade thantheir counterparts in social science since the beginning of the reform.

150

Figure 7.1: Approximate pass rates by learning track from 2014 to 2019

In percent

71%
54%

83%

77%
57%

53%

83%

52%

83%

52%

40%
25%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Science

Social science

2018

2019

Create by the author
sources: (MoEYS, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)

Additionally, students who planned to switch their learning track at university undertook PT
of subjects not required for their Grade 12 baccalaureate examination, albeit they followedsocial science track. This decision was narratively explained as a way to avoid the risk offailure. As indicated in Table 7.1, most students undertook PT of subjects required for theirlearning track. Mathematics is still considered the subject requiring the most tutoring as Brayet al.’s (2018, p. 442) explained that mathematics is known as not only the core subject. In
addition, a small proportion of students in social science took PT of elective subjects for science
track because they aimed to switch their track at the university level after succeeding thisbaccalaureate examination.
Table 7.1: Rate differences for private tutoring by learning track and subject
Subject Categories

Compulsory subjects

Elective subjects forscience track ONLY

Tutoring subjects

Science (n = 381)

Social science (n = 259)(n = 640)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Mathematics

363 (95.28)

234 (90.35)

Khmer composition

236 (61.94)

233 (89.96)

English

128 (33.6)

100 (38.61)

Physics

339 (88.98)

26 (10.04)

Chemistry

338 (88.71)

112 (43.24)

Biology304 (79.79)

74 (28.57)

151

7.3.2 Family socio-economy
Insufficient salaries have still been found as one of the factors influencing Cambodian
schoolteachers to continue offering PT to their own students. This study’s finding echoed
literature in various study contexts (i.e., Benveniste et al., 2008a; Bray, 2003, 2013; Bray etal., 2016, 2018; Dang & King, 2016; Dawson, 2009, 2010; Manzon, 2018; Tandon & Fukao,2015). As evidence, about 77% of schoolteachers reported offering PT due to financial issues.
Although the survey analysis showed no association between schoolteachers’ PT engagement
and their family SES, it revealed that schoolteachers who were in bank load and whose spouses
attained only primary education level were more likely to continue with PT.

Additionally, the study found that during the equitable opportunity of education through theanti-cheating examination, the financial burden was in the hand of some particular groups ofstudents’ families. Although household SES did not have any significant association withstudents’ PT investment in the survey result, the narrative finding revealed that some parents
used the informal loan to send their children for PT to obtain a better return. One informant,for instance, described this situation when asked how much she paid for her son’s PT that “…
it is not much. I do not know because some are paid monthly, weekly, and hourly. As I know,
it costs only 1,000 riels [approximately USD 0.25] per subject. I got a loan from one family in
my village for him, and I have to pay back daily about 10,000 riels [approximately USD 2.50].
However, this is not a big deal when thinking about his future” (Rural PTS17: Parent of tuteein science). It should be noted that although Cambodia has performed well in GDP growth atan annual average of 7.7% from 2010 to 2019 (World Bank, 2019), Asian Development Bank
(ADB) (2019) reported that 17.8% of the Cambodian population was living under the poverty
line. Therefore, although CSES’ national survey result revealed that one household
approximately paid USD 68, in average per year for total tuition fee (see Figure 2.4), yet the152payment remained a burden for this proportion of population in obtaining social mobility
through this standardized baccalaureate examination.

7.4 Societal aspect
To gain social mobility through the baccalaureate examination, Cambodian parents were also
influenced by their peers to invest in PT for their children and expected a better return (i.e.,pass grade) than what their peers’ children could gain. Additionally, they viewed the PT
investment as a kind of motivation to assist their children in learning and keep up with theircounterparts. In the same line, Bray (2003) explained that to succeed in standardized
examination, poor and middle-income families invested in PT to keep up with their highincome peers and improve children’s self-esteem (Hajar, 2018). Additionally, some parents
viewed that PT could keep their children busy after their daily school schedule, so they did nothave time to associate with some deviant peers in society. These findings extended an insighton the concepts of “child-minding” or “babysitting” with the Cambodian primary school
children, found by Bray (1999b) and Dawson (2009), to ensure their child safety as they did
not have enough time to involve with them after school. Additionally, some schoolteachers felt
obligated to continue PT before or after official school hour due to the request of students orparents and the school principal.

7.5 Private tutoring and social mobility
Edwards et al. (2020) explained that many different aspects of social mobility could be
discussed in relation to private tutoring. They discussed PT and social mobility of Cambodianstudents at the basic education level in five different aspects as examples of economic andsocial capital such as gender, schoolteachers’ socio-spatial position, family situation, distanceand safety, and physical competence.

153

This study showed contradicting findings in some of these aspects, such as gender. It is worth
noting that this study chiefly focuses on upper secondary school, Grade 12 specifically. The
level of education brought into the study’s focus could affect the possibility of spatial
movement of Cambodian students. The societal aspect of home distance and safety impacted
the equitable possibility of obtaining social mobility in baccalaureate examination of
Cambodian Grade 12 students through the institutional configuration of space (i.e., PT) rather
than gender and household’s SES. This current study found there was no disparity between
female and male students to mobile through PT possibility toward their goal of earning apassing grade. A family whose daughters could reach this senior grade was likely to go beyond
the cultural and traditional stigma of females: women were believed to stay home helping
housework and be housewives (Vickery, 1984). Families, regardless of their SES level,
invested in PT to maximize their chance to gain social mobility through this baccalaureate
examination to assist their child to keep up with their peers (Bray, 2003). However, whencarefully looking through narrative findings, geographical configuration of space (i.e., homedistance and safety) impacted students’ possibility to mobile, albeit the survey analysis result
showed an insignificant association between school area and PT engagement in this study.
Simply put, regardless of school areas (Phnom Penh, urban and rural areas), students whose
home was located away or the road to their home was quiet/dark could not participate in PT.
Narratively, parents and students expressed concerns about their personal security during
returning home in the late evenings after PT classes. Similarly, local media reports and studies(e.g., Chum Kriel Youth, 2022; Edwards et al., 2020; Women’s Media Center of Cambodia,2021) revealed parents' and students’ concerns about their (child’s) safety when returning home
after PT classes alone in the late evening.

154

7.6 Chapter summary
The reasons schoolteachers and students, including their parents, have been categorized into
three aspects: education system, personal and societal. First, the education system aspectembedded two reasons PT in Cambodia remained in demand: “teaching pedagogies andsyllabus” and “anti-cheating examination.” The teaching quality at the public school could notprepare students for their baccalaureate examination, so students decided to opt for PT as
another additional opportunity to continue the school syllabus and to supplement what theirschoolteachers did not offer them. Both schoolteachers and students also viewed insufficient
instructional time as one of the main causes of splitting the school syllabus or using hurriedteaching by some schoolteachers. Second, some reasons to continue PT were nested in the
personal aspect, such as teachers, students’ learning track, and family socio-economy.
Mathematics and science subjects were more in need than the rest of the examination. Students
who were in science track engaged in PT because of the challenging level of their mathematics
and science tests. Also, their subjects required more practice to acquire adequate knowledge
and skills. However, some students in social science track decided to invest in PT of their noncore examination subjects as they considered switching their learning track at the university.
They enrolled in social science track at the current level to maximize their chances of obtaininga passing grade as mathematics, and social science were less challenging. With the same
personal aspect, teachers’ low salaries were found to be one of the reasons that schoolteachers
continue providing PT to their students. Although some parents face financial issues, they
invest in PT for their children through an informal loan. Third, some reasons for continuing PT
were categorized in societal aspects. These reasons were mainly expressed by parents rather
than students. With the concern of a bad friendship association, some parents decided tocontinue investing for PT to increase their academic workload. Similarly, due to their time
constraints, they viewed investing in PT as “child-minding” or “babysitting” techniques. Some

155

parents viewed PT as a key motivation for their children as it could help them feel along withand could keep up with their peers. Regarding schoolteachers, they felt obligated to offer PT
as requested by the parents, including the school principal.

156

Chapter 8: CONCLUSION
This empirical study was conducted to answer two research questions employing a survey
questionnaire and interviews, aiming to gain insightful understanding on why PT remained indemand for both schoolteachers and students. This chapter starts with a brief overview of thestudy, followed by a summary of key findings and conclusions for each research question. Then
it is used to provide an overall discussion of the key findings for the main research objective.
Finally, this chapter offers the conclusion and the final last part.

PT has brought an equitable issue in access to education among students as it pushed students
who could not afford PT at a disadvantage. Students who could afford the same could continuelearning the left-over school syllabus after or before public school hours with effective teachingpedagogies (Bray, 2013; Bray et al., 2019; Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b). Due
to low salaries, Cambodian schoolteachers committed unprofessionalism such as withholding
some content, slowing down their teaching, using uncaring pedagogy during public school andinclining favor to their tutee etc. to promote their PT classes with their own students for
supplementary income (Bray, 1999b; Bray et al., 2016, 2018; Brehm & Aktas, 2020; Dawson,2009). Giving unfair treatment in teaching activities and examinations was found to impact
Cambodian students to engage in cheating during the examination (Maeda, 2019). RGC and
MoEYS have conducted many actions in response to the society’s criticism of inequitable andschoolteacher unprofessionalism, such as abolishing school fees and informal payment,
including PT fees, increasing schoolteachers’ payment substantially, and employing
discouragement scenarios to signal schoolteachers not to engage in PT as well as the anticheating examination. However, rates of students undertaking PT outside school hours kept
increasing according to the national survey of CSES (Figure 2.2). Hence, the question is why
PT is still in demand in Cambodia. In response to this, this study aimed to answer to two157research questions: (1) Why did schoolteachers continue to offer PT at Cambodian upper
secondary schools? (2) Why did students and parents continue to invest in PT at Cambodian
upper secondary schools? To answer these research questions, the study employed interview
and survey approaches for data collection and analysis to gain an insightful understanding of
this issue. A self-reported survey collected narrative data from 89 interviewees, including
different educational stakeholders, 198 schoolteachers, and 862 paired students and parents.
These data were collected from 12 upper secondary schools in Phnom Penh and four provinces
through online applications due to the school closure following the COVID-19 pandemic.

8.1 Summary of key findings
The first research question aimed to gain insight into why schoolteachers at upper secondary
schools continue offering PT to their Grade 12 students. Overall, the primary reasons
Cambodian schoolteachers continue engaging in PT for their students were the shortage of
instructional time, low salaries, teacher specialization, parents’ requests included some school
principals, and anti-cheating examinations. First, like the previous studies (e.g., Bray, 2008;
Brehm & Silova, 2014b), schoolteachers unveiled that the MoEYS’ given instructional time
was insufficient for them to complete or cover all syllabus contents. To avoid being blamed,some schoolteachers focused on only theories or formulas during public school and left out thepractical stage at their tutoring classes. However, from the leadership point of view, the study
revealed that schoolteachers’ lateness and absenteeism were the causes of the overloadedsyllabus. This was in line with Bray et al.’s finding (2016) in the same study context. Second,in line with the literature and local media reports (Dawson, 2009; Khy, 2019), schoolteachers’
low salaries had an impact on PT engagement in this study. Although RGC has increased theirsalaries substantially, it could not meet their family’s daily needs due to the simultaneous
increase in living costs. However, some schoolteachers did not engage in PT due to having

158

other income sources such as working for private schools and/or from their own/family’sbusiness. Third, like previous studies (e.g., Alazmi & Alazmi, 2020; Bray & Bunly, 2005;
Kenayathulla, 2015; Marshall & Fukao, 2019), schoolteacher’s teaching specialization,
particularly mathematics and science subjects, was found to impact schoolteachers’ decision
to continue PT for their students. This is because most of their subjects require practice tomaster knowledge and skills, unlike English and social sciences, which students could learn on
their own through memorization skills. Fourth, schoolteachers felt obligated to offer PT due tothe request from either students or parents. Dawson (2009), also claimed similar findings in
the Cambodian context. Adding to this, the study unveiled that school principals requested
schoolteachers of examination subjects to offer PT to the students because they feared thatstudents could not learn the entire syllabus or be qualified enough to succeed the baccalaureate
examination through learning at only public school. Similarly, POE (vice)director agreed that
PT was in place to assist students outside school hours due to the poor self-learning skills ofstudents. Last, the study unexpectedly found that anti-cheating examinations ironically
impacted schoolteachers to continue PT in response to the demand increase because students
and parents feared failure in their examinations.

The second question is intended to investigate why Cambodian Grade 12 students and theirparents invest in PT. The study yielded some key findings, such as schoolteachers’ uncaring
pedagogies and oppression in school, their learning tracks (science and social science), andfeeling of fear caused by the anti-cheating examination. Additionally, peer influence and theinability to provide academic support at home were found to be reasons only for parents tocontinue investing in PT for their children. First, students viewed that PT for the main subjects
for their examination was in demand due to the ineffective teaching or uncaring pedagogies(e.g., hurried teaching, theory-based learning) during their official school hours. Therefore,

159

they had to undertake PT to catch up with the practical parts of those theories. Some students
narratively explained their schoolteachers’ teaching employed caring pedagogies in the school(i.e., explained theory in detail, accepted and responded to questions), but they agreed that they
could obtain very few practices. Second, some parents and students felt that schoolteachers’
pressure was the reason of their PT engagement. Parents (42.11%) mainly narrated this issue,
while only about 10% of students did. Third, this study observed the association of the learning
tracks with PT rather than observing on the rates of students taking PT for each academic as
the previous studies did (e.g., Bray et al., 2015, 2018; Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova,
2014b). The study unveiled that students’ learning track significantly impacted their decision
to undertake PT. Both data analysis consistently revealed that students in social science weremore likely to undertake of PT than their peers in social science because their mathematics andscience tests were more challenging (Kao & Shimizu, 2020). Additionally, about 90% of
students in social science track continued to undertake PT of the compulsory subjects (i.e.,mathematics and Khmer composition). However, some students in social science track whowere going to switch their track at university also invested in PT of subjects not for theirbaccalaureate examination, but for their university entrance one. Fourth, the study
unpredictably found that anti-cheating examinations created fear among students and parents
and drove them to continue in PT. Parents and students invested in PT to ensure adequate
knowledge and skills to minimize risk of failure in the anti-cheating examination. Studies,
reports and media criticized that students could cheat to earn a passing grade (Francis, 1994;
Kem et al., 2012; Maeda, 2019). Fifth, specifically from parents’ perspectives, the narrative
findings yielded that parents viewed investing in PT through receiving the loan as the key
motivation to help their children to feel along with and keep up with their peers regardless of
their financial issues. Last but not least, parents, regardless of educational attainment level,160

admitted that they could not provide academic support at home, so they decided to invest in PT
as a substitute choice.

8.2 Overall discussion of the main objective
Overall, this current study’s findings were largely aligned with the previous studies of PT in
the primary or lower secondary education level, such as insufficient instructional time tocomplete the intended syllabus and schoolteacher-related aspects (i.e., teaching pedagogies,
the behavior of oppression, and low salaries). However, this study showed context-specificfindings in upper secondary schools such as fear of failure in the anti-cheating examination andthe learning tracks. These could shed light on new perspectives of reasons PT in Cambodia wasin demand. By combining the findings and results from both research questions, the study could
draw an overall discussion in response to the specific research question as follows.

8.2.1 Anti-cheating examination
It is worth briefly noting that the anti-cheating examination is one of the 2014 educational
reform agendas, aiming to establish equity in secondary education by eliminating all unethicalbehavior such as cheating and corruption, as criticized by society and media reports (MoEYS,
2014b, 2015b). To guarantee its success, MoEYS decreed the corruption law to punish
students, schoolteachers, and anyone who engaged in cheating, corruption, and leaking the tests
accordingly. Furthermore, the government’s Anti-Corruption Unit inspected the entire
examination as the corruption law reinforcement (see MoEYS, 2014c, 2016c). Additionally,
this reform differentiated examination subjects and offered different weightage to subjects
according to the learning track (see Table 2.4); it stopped counting the students’ annual averagescores in the school-based assessment administered by schoolteachers to eliminate local schoolor schoolteachers’ influences or misuse of their authorities (MoEYS, 2014b, 2019f).

161

Although the anti-cheating examination policy provides Cambodian Grade 12 students with anequitable opportunity and society has been satisfied with this practice (e.g., Koyanagi, 2017;
The Guardian, 2014), it was ironically found to expand PT engagement and burden somestudents and parents, particularly science track. Students and parents feared failure at theirbaccalaureate examination since they did not really trust in only learning in school. As Biesta
et al.’s (2021 p.2) explanation on two erosions of public education, this could simply infer thatwhen the competition or pressure for the standard is intensified, PT is there to play its role.
Specifically, from the perspectives of schoolteachers and students, including their parents, theexpansion of PT engagement was associated with insufficient instructional time to complete
all contents of the MoEYS syllabus. Concerning the shortage of instructional time,schoolteachers and students used PT to extend their opportunity to continue what could not becovered during the official hours. This finding was in line with the previous studies (e.g., Brayet al., 2018; Brehm et al., 2012; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Hallsén & Karlsson, 2019). This wasmore prominent in mathematics and science subjects. The narrative findings explained thatthey continued PT for more practices to master both knowledge and skills (e.g., PP-TT21,
Urban TT26, Urban TS07). However, from the leadership position’s perspective, the shortageof instructional time or overloaded curriculum resulted from schoolteachers’ lateness andabsenteeism in their daily work. This could be furthered by Biswal’s (1999)finding in different
contexts of developing countries that lack of school accountability and monitoring system was
one of the reasons schoolteachers could engage in PT, and poor school leadership of school
principals was another reason, specifically in Cambodian context (Bredenberg, 2022). In this
aspect, they viewed the shortage of instructional time as malpractices/tricks of schoolteachers
to blackmail their students for PT, as has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Bray, 1999b,
2013; Bray et al., 2016, 2019; Brehm & Silova, 2014b; Dawson, 2009). Therefore, it could be
implied that regardless of educational level, using PT as an oppression happened when the162schoolteachers could offer PT to their students. By viewing from the curriculum perspective,
within the new curriculum framework14, MoEYS (2016b, 2020) aimed to expand the
instructional time from 32 to 40 hours a week in both learning tracks. This could signal that
MoEYS has been attempting to respond to the issue of instructional time. However, schools
reported implementing only 32 or 34 hours in their daily practice (see Table 2.3). One school
principal explained this situation when discussed on his school’s instructional time “I heard
about this [40 hours a week] some [3 or 4] years ago, but I never received that instructionalguideline from POE, only the same one which we have [my school has] been using since 2011,
but POE allowed us to add [instructional hours] according to our availability. [In my school,]
I used 34 hours for Grade 12 as I do not use it [two hours] for ICT” (SP04: rural school
principal).

8.2.2 Learning tracks
To cope with their fear of failure in the anti-cheating examination, students in science track
faced more financial burden and time constraints through investing in PT compared to theircounterparts in social science. The study unveiled that they invested time and money to ensure
they could be qualified enough to pass. Kao and Shimizu (2020) also explained that theirmathematics and science tests were more challenging than their peers' mathematics and social
science tests. The data from this study could also explain that they needed more time to practicein order to master the intended knowledge and skills of the syllabus for almost their
examination subjects. On the contrary, students in social science were less likely to undertake
PT because they could only need memorization skills for their subjects, or their coreexamination subjects are not necessary to undertake PT. About 90% of them also tookmathematics and Khmer composition. Still, they received less burden of not only finance but

14

A ‘curriculum and core book’ reform is one of the 2014 reform agenda (see MoEYS, 2018b, pp.7–8).

163

also chances to pass. These fewer burdens may have affected and will affect the declined rates
of students enrolled in science at upper secondary school. For example, during the first year of
the reform in 2014, 95.83% of students followed science track. However, the rates kept
dropping subsequential years to 49.16% in 2019. At the same time, social science rates rosefrom approximately 4% to about 51% in the same period (MoEYS, 2019i). Then the rates ofstudents in social science overtook that of science in subsequent years, up to 27.7 percentage
points in 2021 (MoEYS, 2021c). The plunge in a science track showed the great concern for
MoEYS when attempting to promote science and mathematics in specific for Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) enrollment at university. Some students
may return to the science track when enrolling in university, as shown in this study. However,it remained in a small percentage as Ung et al. (2021) pointed out that only about 10% of
students in social science switch to science majors. Similarly, this falling trend will affect the2030 RGC’s national goal, which requires more STEM human capital – 50% of students are
expected to be in STEM majors at university based on RGC’s roadmap 2030 (RGC, 2021, p.
4).

8.3 Equity issue among learning track/teaching specialization
Following the anti-cheating examination, PT expansion brought some inequitable opportunity
to students, parents, and schoolteachers. First, PT expansion generates inequitable concern tosome particular parents. This study’s samples reported that one-hour PT cost 1,000 riels(approximately USD 0.25) regardless of subject on average. This may be affordable for many
parents. However, about 21% of parents in this study reported using informal loans to send
their children to PT to gain social mobility through the baccalaureate examination andconsidered this investment a motivational means for their children. Similarly, Bray et al. (2018)
found that some Cambodian parents used loans or worked additional jobs to pay for their164

children’s PT. Therefore, students at financial disadvantage will face more challenges or will
not enroll in science track although they are interested in it. It should be noted that 17.8% of
Cambodian people live under the poverty line (Asian Development Bank, 2019).

Second, PT expansion also created inequity within the teaching profession at upper secondary
schools. This will affect their daily performance especially schoolteachers whose specialization
was not mathematics or science subjects. The survey results showed that schoolteachers whoreported to employ caring pedagogies were more likely to engage in PT (see Table 5.6).
Conversely, some schoolteachers who did not earn additional income with their own students
through PT employed uncaring ones. This could be worrisome toward the public school's
teaching and learning quality.

8.4 Conclusion
PT for Grade 12 students, in particular, remained in a large demand among schoolteachers andstudents in Cambodia for reasons such as avoiding risk of failure in the anti-cheating
examination and students’ learning tracks. In this study context, PT played a role of not onlyin the continuation of the school syllabus, but also in the supplementation of what was left out
in the public school, especially the practical part, and examination preparation in order to gain
adequate knowledge and skills for the baccalaureate examination which is believed as thecheating and corruption free examination after the 2014 education reform. Ironically,
implementing an anti-cheating examination contributed to the PT expansion in Cambodia,
although it could give the nation an equitable opportunity in the Grade-12 baccalaureate
examination. This expansion was associated to the limited trust in the teaching and learning
quality during the public school through the common excuses of having insufficient
instructional time to complete the intended contents of the school syllabus. This issue also165

pushed the financial burden into the hands of students’ families whose child followed thescience track. Although the PT fee remained low, which seemed to be affordable by many
Cambodian households, the expansion of PT developed an inequitable opportunity for someparticular groups of families living under the poverty line. This expansion would push theminto debt and shift some students from science track to social science in order to gain social
mobility through the anti-cheating examination.

8.5 Final remarks
Cambodia requires extensive efforts toward school curriculum reform and improving
schoolteachers’ working conditions. Also, MoEYS should consider extending the practice of
the PT regulation used in the New Generation Schools to all schools in Cambodia. However,this practice should be done with caution or it may enlarge the gap of inequitable access to theadditional education, especially when the quality of education at school is still questionable.
Last but not least, MoEYS should also consider offering other types of free additional
education so it could give more opportunities to particular groups who are not be able to afford
PT.

166

REFERENCES
Alazmi, M., & Alazmi, A. A. (2020). Private supplementary tutoring at higher education in
Kuwait: a socioeconomic study. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education,
13(2), 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2019-0324
Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking attrustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research andPolicy Studies (JETERAPS), 5(2), 272–281.
Asian Development Bank. (2019). Poverty data: Cambodia. Asian Development Bank.
https://www.adb.org/countries/cambodia/poverty
Bagdasarova, N., & Ivanov, A. (2009). Private tutoring in Kyrgyzstan. In I. Silova (Ed.),
Private supplementary tutoring in Central Asia: New opportunities and burden (pp.
119–142). UNESCO and International Institute for Education Planning.
Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow
education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national
mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023001001
Barron, L. (2014, September 8). Meet the man behind the exams. The Phnom Penh Post.
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/meet-man-behindexams?fbclid=IwAR0LYhJTzM1FUo1bKOxV2on_R0JFuFX5fzWwTO4kDv7ceW6O5IPBBiyLRw
BBC News. (2013). Cambodia election: Hun Sen’s ruling party claims victory - BBC News.
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23484224
Benveniste, L., Marshall, J., & Araujo, M. C. (2008a). Teaching in Cambodia (No. 44850).
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/8073
Benveniste, L., Marshall, J., & Araujo, M. C. (2008b). Teaching in Cambodia. The World167

Bank and Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/06/9723625/teaching-cambodia
Biesta, G., Heugh, K., Cervinkova, H., Rasiński, L., Osborne, S., Forde, D., Wrench, A.,
Carter, J., Säfström, C. A., Soong, H., O’Keeffe, S., Paige, K., Rigney, L. I., O’Toole,
L., Hattam, R., Peters, M. A., & Tesar, M. (2021). Philosophy of education in a new
key: Publicness, social justice, and education; a South-North conversation. Educational
Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1929172
Biswal, B. P. (1999). Private tutoring and public corruption: A cost-effective education
system for developing countries. Developing Economies, 37(2), 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1999.tb00232.x
Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual
considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education
Review, 22(6), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3
Bray, M. (1999a). The private cost of public schooling: household and community financing
of primary education in Cambodia. International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
Bray, M. (1999b). The shadow education system: private tutoring and its implications forplanners. International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
Bray, M. (2003). Adverse Effects of Private Supplementary Tutoring: Dimensions,
Implications, and Government Responses, Series: Ethics and Corruption in Education.
UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/publication/adverse-effects-private-supplementarytutoring-dimensions-implications-and-government
Bray, M. (2008). Double-shift schooling: Design and operation for cost-effectiveness (3rded.). UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000163606/PDF/163606eng.pdf.multi

168

Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies forwhat private tutoring? UNESCO and International Institute for Education Planning.
Bray, M. (2010). Blurring boundaries: The growing visibility, evolving forms and complex
implications of private supplementary tutoring. ORBIS SCHOLAE, 4(2), 61–73.
https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.126
Bray, M. (2013). Shadow Education: Comparative perspectives on the expansion andimplications of private supplementary tutoring. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 77, 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.096
Bray, M. (2015). What is Private Tuition Really Doing to - or for - Education? - The HEAD
Foundation. The HEAD Foundation. https://headfoundation.org/2015/10/13/what-isprivate-tuition-really-doing-to-or-for-education/
Bray, M. (2017). Schooling and its supplements: Changing global patterns and implications
for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 61(3), 469–491.
https://doi.org/10.1086/692709
Bray, M. (2020). Shadow education in Europe: Growing prevalence, underlying forces, andpolicy implications. ECNU Review of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119890142
Bray, M. (2021). Swimming against the tide: Comparative lessons from government efforts
to prohibit private supplementary tutoring delivered by regular teachers. Hungarian
Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2020.00031
Bray, M., & Bunly, S. (2005). Balancing the books: Household financing of basic educationin Cambodia (1st ed.). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC).
Bray, M., Kobakhidze, M. N., Liu, J., & Zhang, W. (2016). The internal dynamics ofprivatised public education: Fee-charging supplementary tutoring provided by teachers
in Cambodia. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 291–299.

169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.04.003
Bray, M., Kobakhidze, M. N., Zhang, W., & Liu, J. (2018). The hidden curriculum in ahidden marketplace: Relationships and values in Cambodia’s shadow education system.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(4), 435–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1461932
Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2013). Behind the façade of fee-free education: Shadow education andits implications for social justice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 480–497.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.821852
Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for
supplementary education in Asia. Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC).
Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2015). Designing and implementing mixed approaches to shadow
education: Experiences and lesson in Hong Kong. In M. Bray, O. Kwo, & B. Jokic(Eds.), Researching Private Supplementary Tutoring : Methodological Lessons fromDiverse Cultures (pp. 149–178). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC),
Springer.
Bray, M., Kwo, O., & Jokic, B. (2015). Researching private supllementary tutoring:
Methodological lessons from diverse cultures (M. Bray, O. Kwo, & B. Jokic (eds.)).
Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC), Springer.
Bray, M., Liu, J., Zhang, W., & Kobakhidze, M. N. (2019). (Mis)Trust and (abuse of)authority in Cambodian education parallel lessons in the shadow. In M. Schüpbach & N.
Lilla (Eds.), Extended Education from an International Comparative Point of View:
WERA-IRN Extended Education Conference Volume (pp. 7–21). Springer VS.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27172-5
Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its
implications for policy makers in Asia. Asian Devlopment Bank (ADB).

170

Bray, M., Zhang, W., Kobakhidze, M. N., & Liu, J. (2015). Researching private
supplementary tutoring in Cambodia: Contexts, instruments and approaches. In M. Bray,
O. Kwo, & B. Jokic (Eds.), Researching Private Supplementary Tutoring :Methodological Lessons from Diverse Cultures (pp. 219–244). Comparative Education
Research Centre (CERC), Springer.
Bredenberg, K. (2022). Progress with reforming secondary education in Cambodia. In V.
McNamara & M. Hayden (Eds.), Education in Cambodia: From year zero towards
international standards (Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns andProspects 64) (pp. 55–80). Spinger. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-168213-1_4
Bregvadze, T. (2012). Analysing the shadows: Private tutoring as a descriptor of theeducation system in Georgia. International Education Studies, 5(6), 80–89.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n6p80
Brehm, W. (2015). The structure and agents enabling educational corruption in Cambodia
shadow education and the business of examinations. In Y. Kitamura, D. B. Edwards, S.
Chhinh, & J. H. Willianms (Eds.), The Political Economy of Schooling in Cambodia:
Issues of Quality and Equity (pp. 103–123). Palgrave MacMillan.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282878994_The_political_economy_of_schoo
ling_in_Cambodia_Issues_of_equity_and_quality
Brehm, W. (2017). The is and the ought of knowing: Ontological observations on shadow
education research in Cambodia. Southeast Asian Studies, 6(3), 485–503.
https://doi.org/10.20495/seas.6.3_485
Brehm, W. (2018). Private tutoring in Southeast Asia: Knowledge economies, positional
goods, and double entrendres. In K. J. Kennedy & J. C.-K. Lee (Eds.), Routledge
international handbook of schools and schooling in Asia (pp. 333–342). The Routledge.

171

Brehm, W. (2021). Cambodia for sale: Everyday privatization in education and beyond.
Routledge.
Brehm, W., & Aktas, F. (2020). All education for some? International development andshadow education in Cambodia. International Journal of Comparative Education andDevelopment, 22(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-01-2019-0005
Brehm, W., & Silova, I. (2014a). Ethical dilemmas in the education marketplace: Shadow
education, political philosophy and social (in)justice in Cambodia. In I. Macpherson, S.
Robertson, & G. Walford (Eds.), Education, privatization and social justice: Casestudies from Africa, South Asia and South East Asia (pp. 159–178). Symposium Books.
Brehm, W., & Silova, I. (2014b). Hidden privatization of public education in Cambodia:
Equity implications of private tutoring. Journal for Educational Research Online, 6(1),94–116. https://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=8842
Brehm, W., Silova, I., & Mono, T. (2012). The Public-Private Education System in
Cambodia: The impact and implications of complementary tutoring. In ESP Working
Paper Series (No. 39; Special Series: The Privatisation in Education Research
Initiative).
http://www.periglobal.org/sites/periglobal.org/files/WP39_Hidden_Privatization_Public_Education_Cambodia_0.pdf
Būdienė, V., & Zabulionis, A. (2006). Lithuania. In I. Silova, V. Būdienė, & M. Bray (Eds.),
Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring (pp. 211–235). OpenSociety Institute. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/educationhidden-marketplace-monitoring-private-tutoring#publications_download
Burchell, B., & Marsh, C. (1992). The effect of questionnaire length on survey response.
Quality and Quantity, 26(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172427
Cambodia Independent Teachers Association [CITA]. (2010). Teachers’ salary and terms &172

conditions: Position paper 2013-2015.
Channyda, C., & Cuddy, A. (2015). The knowledge economy. Phnom Penh Post.
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/knowledge-economy-0
Chhinh, S., Edwards, D. B., Williams, J. H., & Kitamura, Y. (2015). Introduction. In Y.
Kitamura, D. B. Edwards, S. Chhinh, & J. H. Williams (Eds.), The Political Economy of
Schooling in Cambodia: Issues of Quality and Equity (1st ed., pp. 3–12). Palgrave
MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.7571/esjkyoiku.11.123
Chum Kriel Youth. (2022). !"ព$%លេ(ឃុំជុំេ-គ/ល %រម2ពីសុវត7ិ9ពកូន ខណៈផABវេធDEដំេណEរយប់JKត់ និងងងឹត. Thmey Thmey 25.
https://thmeythmey25.com/detail/91606?fbclid=IwAR34n1mO0nFzoR_Dvl44xZMNXHpTq1_Ylhu8Ydr1Xab0zuwU0gb8-XGxkQ
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education. In Research
Methods in Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Country Economy. (2020). Cambodia GDP - Gross Domestic Product. Countryeconomy.
https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/cambodia
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, andmixed methods approaches. In Research Defign: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed M
ethods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting,and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.
Dang, H. A., & Rogers, F. (2008). The Growing Phenomenon of Private Tutoring. The WorldBank Research Observer, 23(2), 161–200. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40282371
Dang, H. A. (2013). Private tutoring in Vietnam: A review of current issues and its majorcorrelates. In Policy Research Working Paper (No. 6618; Policy Research Working
Paper).
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/241061468328828236/pdf/WPS6618.pdf

173Dang, H. A. H., & King, E. M. (2016). Incentives and teacher effort: Further evidence from adeveloping country. Economics of Transition, 24(4), 621–660.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12101
Dawson, W. (2009). The tricks of the teacher: shadow education and corruption in Cambodia.
In S. P. Heyneman (Ed.), Buying your way into heaven: Education and corruption ininternational perspective (pp.51-74). Senses Publishers.
https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/131-buying-your-way-into-heaven.pdf
Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections ofinequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1),
14–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9058-4
Dawson, W. (2011). Supplementary education in Cambodia. International Christian
University Newsletter, 56, 18–19.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.328&rep=rep1&type=pdf
de Guzman, S. (2007). Cambodia: Summary report the impact of informal school fees. AsiaSouth Pacific Education Watch. In Asian-South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED533596&site=eho
st-live
Edwards, D. B., Le, H., & Sustarsic, M. (2020). Spatializing a global education phenomenon:
Private tutoring and mobility theory in Cambodia. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5),713–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1610192
Entrich, S. R. (2014). Effects of investments in out-of-school education in Germany andJapan. Contemporary Japan, 26(1), 71–102. https://doi.org/10.1515/cj-2014-0004
Entrich, S. R. (2020). Worldwide shadow education and social inequality: Explaining
differences in the socioeconomic gap in access to shadow education across 63 societies.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(6), 441–475.

174https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715220987861
Everett, S., & Kaing, M. (2014). 2014 national high school examination: A snap poll in
Cambodia. http://ticambodia.org/library/wpcontent/files_mf/1436953909CambodiaNationalHighSchoolExamSnapPoll2014.pdf
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research ineducation (8th ed.). MacGraw Hill.
Francis, D. (1994, August 26). Huot says exam cheats beaten. Phnom Penh Post.
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/huot-says-exam-cheats-beaten
Ghosh, P., & Bray, M. (2018). Credentialism and demand for private supplementary tutoring:
A comparative study of students following two examination boards in India.
International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 20(1), 33–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-10-2017-0029
Ghosh, P., & Bray, M. (2020). School systems as breeding grounds for shadow education:
Factors contributing to private supplementary tutoring in West Bengal, India. European
Journal of Education, 55(3), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12412
Guill, K., Ömeroğulları, M., & Köller, O. (2021). Intensity and content of private tutoring
lessons during German secondary schooling: Effects on students’ grades and test
achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00581-x
Hagens, V., Dobrow, M. J., & Chafe, R. (2009). Interviewee transcript review: Assessing theimpact on qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47
Hajar, A. (2018). Exploring year 6 pupils’ perceptions of private tutoring: Evidence from175

three mainstream schools in England. Oxford Review of Education, 44(4), 514–531.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1430563
Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2007). Corrupt schools, corrupt universities: What can be done?
UNESCO and International Institute for Education Planning.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000150259/PDF/150259eng.pdf.multiHallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2008). Academic fraud and quality assurance: Facing thechallenges of the internationalisation of higher education. In G. Hernes & M. Martin(Eds.), Accreditation and the global higher education market (pp. 190–206).
International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000163514/PDF/163514eng.pdf.multiHallsén, S., & Karlsson, M. (2019). Teacher or friend?–Consumer narratives on private
supplementary tutoring in Sweden as policy enactment. Journal of Education Policy,
34(5), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1458995
Hamid, M. O., Khan, A., & Islam, M. M. (2018). The spread of private tutoring in English indeveloping societies: Exploring students’ perceptions. Discourse: Studies in the Culture
Politics of Education, 39(6), 868–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1308314
Hammond, C. D. (2018). Corruption in the classroom: The Dilemma of public school
teachers in Cambodia providing private tutoring to their own students. The Journal of
Rikkyo University Language Center, 39, 3–13.
Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2007). The Role of education quality in economic growth.
In Policy Research Working Paper (No. 4122; Issue 2).
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7154
Heyneman, S. P. (2009). Buying your way into heaven: Education and corruption ininternational perspective. Senses Publishers.
Heyneman, S. P. (2011). Private tutoring and social cohesion. Peabody Journal of Education,176

86(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.561662
Hugick, L., & Best, J. (2008). Questionnaire length. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofsurvey research methods (Volum 1 & 2) (pp. 659–660). SAGE Publications.
Hunt, L. (2013). Cambodia’s Eerie Silence: Hun Sen is returned to power with a muchslimmer majority. Will protests ensue? The Diplomat.
https://thediplomat.com/2013/08/cambodias-eerie-silence/
Jalli, N. (2020). Lack of internet access in Southeast Asia poses challenges for students tostudy online amid COVID-19 pandemic. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/lack-of-internet-access-in-southeast-asia-poses-challengesfor-students-to-study-online-amid-covid-19-pandemic133787?fbclid=IwAR2RRJVDSw11ahSwJOSlLdF1zNcZbsSwhVeRILrdaIuvOazvIwn0qewg64
Jayachandran, S. (2014). Incentives to teach badly: After-school tutoring in developing
countries. Journal of Development Economics, 108, 190–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.02.008
Jones, W. J., & Rhein, D. L. (2018). Tutorial schools in Thailand: Perceptions andmotivations of Thai high school students. FIRE: Forum for International Research in
Education, 4(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.18275/fire201704021137
Jung, J. H. (2018). Decolonizing educational/curriculum studies in East Asia: Problematizing
shadow education in South Korea. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 19(2), 269–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2018.1463074
Kao, S., & Shimizu, K. (2020). Factors affecting Cambodian upper secondary school
students’ choice of science track. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(3),262–292. https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.2020.4823
KAPE. (2014). Creating a new generation ofsSchools in Cambodia: Experimenting in new177

governance structures to create high quality education models. In Kampuchean Action
for Primary Education (Issue October). http://www.kapekh.org/files/report_file/44en.pdf
Kem, L., Chea, C., Yun, S., & Hsandy, T. (2012). Turning a blind eye: 2012 national highschool exam situation survey. https://60x27.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/2012-baciiexam-survey-findings.pdf
Kenayathulla, H. B. (2015). Research on private tutoring in Malaysia: Methodologicalinsights from a quantitative study. In M. Bray, O. Kwo, & B. Jokic (Eds.), Researching
Private Supplementary Tutoring: Methodological Lessons from Diverse Cultures (pp.
49–58). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC), Springer.
Keng, C. (2009). Basic Education in Cambodia: Quality and equality. In Y. Hirosato & Y.
Kitamura (Eds.), The Political economy of educational reforms and capacity
development in Southeast Asia: Cases of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (pp. 131–152).
Spinger. http://119.82.251.165:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/181/Basiceducation in Cambodia quality and equity.pdf?sequence=1
Khaydarov, S. (2020). Shadow education in Uzbekistan: Teachers’ perceptions of private
tutoring in the context of academic lyceums. Orbis Scholae, 14(2), 81–104.
https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2020.20
Khiev, C., & Ty, S. (2011, November 2). Strengthening the quality of, and building
confidence in, state schools. The Phnom Penh Post.
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/lift/strengthening-quality-and-building-confidencestate-schools
Khy, S. (2019). Wages set to increase for civil servants. Khmer Times.
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/654902/wages-set-to-increase-for-civilservants/?fbclid=IwAR2AHjRUyUwqY_Kx2NF5HuXYXn3UhCewhgYLbM5S4ABL4178

jbBxouQ882vTxA
Kim, J. H., & Park, D. (2010). The determinants of demand for private tutoring in South
Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564009-9067-3
Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–296.
https://doi.org/10.1086/648186
Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement
instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(23),2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364
Kobakhidze, M. N. (2015). Shadow education research through TIMSS and PIRLS:
Experiences and lessons in the Republic of Geogia. In M. Bray, O. Kwo, & B. Jokic(Eds.), Researching Private Supplementary Tutoring: Methodological Lessons fromDiverse Cultures (pp. 23–48). Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC),
Springer.
Kobakidze, M. N., & Suter, L. E. (2020). The global diversity of shadow education.
European Journal of Education, 55(3), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12411
Koyanagi, K. (2017, March 16). Cambodia’s teachers cannot afford to be professional:
Bribery has become part of a “systematically corrupt” education system. NIKKEI Asia.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Cambodia-s-teachers-cannot-afford-to-beprofessional?fbclid=IwAR3Ai5tbRl5oQvfFuaazf0h9hcnWUNcwgVHskKxb1Jg_NsGY
850ZD1Q5X0o
Kung, P. (2013). Reforming the Cambodian People’s Party: The recent elections should be a
wakeup call for a party that has grown complacement over the years. The Diplomat.
https://thediplomat.com/2013/10/reforming-the-cambodian-peoples-party/

179

Kwok, P. L. Y. (2010). Demand intensity, market parameters and policy responses towards
demand and supply of private supplementary tutoring in China. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 11(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9060-x
Lee, C. J., Park, H.-J., & Lee, H. (2009). Shadow education systems. In G. Sykes, B.
Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Policy Research (pp. 901–
919). Routledge for the American Educational Research Association.
Lee, C. J. (2005). Korean educational fever and private tutoring. KEDI Journal of
Educational Policy, 2(1), 99–107.
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 665–668.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001129
Leech, N. L., Barrentt, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Useand interpretation (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leng, S. (2015). Diachronic content analysis of newspaper articles on academic cheating in
Cambodia.
Li, T. S. P., & Choi, B. C. (2014). Private supplementary tutoring in Macao: Past, present andthe future. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(4), 505–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.978743
Liu, J. (2012). Does cram schooling matter? Who goes to cram schools? Evidence from
Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 46–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.01.014
Liu, J., & Bray, M. (2020a). Accountability and (mis)trust in education systems: Private
supplementary tutoring and the ineffectiveness of regulation in Myanmar. European
Journal of Education, 55(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12409
Liu, J., & Bray, M. (2020b). Private Subtractory Tutoring: The negative impact of shadow

180education on public schooling in Myanmar. International Journal of Educational
Development, 76(May), 102213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102213
Maeda, M. (2019). Exam cheating among Cambodian students: When, how, and why it
happens. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(3), 337–
355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1613344
Mahmud, R., & Bray, M. (2017). School factors underlying demand for private
supplementary tutoring in English: Urban and rural variations in Bangladesh. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 37(3), 299–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1321525
Mahmud, R., & Kenayathulla, H. B. (2018). Shadow education: Patterns and scale of private
supplementary tutoring in English in secondary education at urban Dhaka in
Bangladesh. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(5),702–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1340827
Manzon, M. (2018). Private tutoring in Asia: Illuminating the shadow. In K. J. Kennedy & J.
C. Lee (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of schools and schooling in Asia (pp.
319–322).
Manzon, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (2014). Shadow educations: Mapping the global
discourse. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(4), 389–402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.969194
Marshall, J. H., & Fukao, T. (2019). Shadow education and inequality in lower secondary
schooling in cambodia: Understanding the dynamics of private tutoring participation andprovision. Comparative Education Review, 63(1), 98–120.
https://doi.org/10.1086/701064
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

181

Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
MoEYS. (2001). Guideline for teachers orientation course: Utilization of the new curriculum
and textbook for Grade 6. Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2004). Policy for curriculum development 2005-2009. Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2006). Kamvithy SeksaKol samrab Emrom Mouldthan Chamnes Toutao“Curriculum for General Education” (in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth andSport.
MoEYS. (2010a). Education Strategic Plan 2009-2013. Ministry of Education Youth andSport.
MoEYS. (2010b). Instruction on implementing study curriculum at upper secondary school(in Khmer).
MoEYS. (2010c). Memorandum of leaving examination for general education. Ministry of
Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2013). Memorandum on preparation and administration of upper secondary school
national examination (in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2014a). Announcement of the results of 2014 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2014b). Examination reform of secondary school (Presentation by Mr. Ung Ngo
Hok, director of secondary general education). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
http://www.moeys.gov.kh/kh/gallery/505.html#.Yog6bJNBzrk
MoEYS. (2014c). Rule and regulations for Candidates in upper secondary school leaving
examination (in Khmer), dated May 6 2016 (No.1026 moey.br.k). Ministry of Education
Youth and Sport.

182

MoEYS. (2015a). Announcement of the results of 2015 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2015b). Education congress: Vision of education reform in Cambodia(Presentation by H.E Dr. Hang Chuon Naron, Minister of MoEYS). Ministry of
Education Youth and Sport. http://www.moeys.gov.kh/index.php/en/educationcongress-2015/1464.html#.YpyjFJBBwWY
MoEYS. (2016a). Announcement of the results of 2016 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2016b). Curriculum framework of general education and technical Education. In
Department of Curriculum Dvelopment. Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
http://www.moeys.gov.kh/en/dge/2328.html#.XnXKHugzZPY%0Afile:///C:/Users/Lind
a/Desktop/Characteristics of CT/Curriculum Framework Of General Education And
Technical Education.pdf
MoEYS. (2016c). Rule and regulation for education stuff during leaving examination of
upper secondary school (in Khmer), dated July 18 2016 (No. 727 moey.br.k). Ministryof Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2017a). Announcement of the results of 2017 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2017b). The Education performance in the academic year 2015-2016 and goals for
2016-2017 (Education Congress: Summary report). Ministry of Education Youth andSport.
MoEYS. (2018a). Announcement of the results of 2018 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2018b). Education in Cambodia: Findings from Cambodia’s experience in PISA
for Development. Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.

183

https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/library/education-in-cambodia-findings-fromcambodias-experience-in-pisa-for-development
MoEYS. (2018c). Education reform strategies 2018-2023 (in Khmer). Ministry of Education
Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019a). Announcement of the results of 2019 upper secondary school examination(in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019b). Application form for students applying for poor priorty scholarship.
Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019c). Cambodia’s Education 2030 Roadmap: Sustainable Development-Goal 4.
Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
https://www.moeys.gov.kh/index.php/en/planning/2901.html#.YWfymHmRWCQMoEYS. (2019d). Guideline on implementing Prakas No.155 moeys.s.n.n, dated 29 January
2019 on preparation and administration of upper secondary school national
examination 2018-2019 (in Khmer). Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019e). Memorandum on preparation and administration of lower secondary
school examination (in Khmer), No. 154 moeys.br.k. Ministry of Education Youth andSport.
MoEYS. (2019f). Memorandum on preparation and administration of upper secondary
school national examination (in Khmer), No. 155 moeys.br.k. Ministry of Education
Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019g). Private education statistics & indicators 2018-2019. Ministry of Education
Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019h). Public education statistics and indicators 2018-2019. Ministry of
Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2019i). Statistics complied by Department of General Education. Ministry of184

Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2020). Guiding document on how to select science and social science orvocational. Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2021a). Announcement on teaching and learning in group for all public andprivate educational institutions including teacher training institutions (in Khmer).
Ministry of Education Youth and Sport.
MoEYS. (2021b). Cambodia secondary education blueprint 2030. Ministry of Education
Youth and Sport.
https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/cambodia-secondaryeducation-blueprint-2030-english.pdf
MoEYS. (2021c). Statistics complied by Department of General Education. Ministry of
Education Youth and Sport.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implicationsof combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
Mori, I., & Baker, D. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the
supplemental education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of
education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564009-9057-5
Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students’ perception andpreference for online education in India during COVID -19 pandemic. Social Sciences &Humanities Open, 3(1), 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101
Naren, K., & Blomberg, M. (2014). Education Ministry to delegate junior high exam toschools. The Cambodian Daily. https://english.cambodiadaily.com/news/educationministry-to-delegate-junior-high-exam-to-schools-56015/

185

Nath, S. R. (2008). Private supplementary tutoring among primary students in Bangladesh.
Educational Studies, 34(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701785285
National Institute of Statistics. (2012). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2010 (Issue
January).
National Institute of Statistics. (2013). Suppplementary notes, commecenting the results of
the Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey, CSE S 2012 (Issue October).
National Institute of Statistics. (2014). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2013 (Issue July).
National Institute of Statistics. (2015). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2014 (Issue
October).
National Institute of Statistics. (2016). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2015 (Issue
October).
National Institute of Statistics. (2017). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2016 (Issue
October).
National Institute of Statistics. (2018). Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2017 (Issue
November).
National Institute of Statistics. (2020). Report of Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey 2019/20(Issue December).
NGO Education Partnership. (2007). The impact of informl school fees.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in school: An alternative approach to education.
In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Ogisu, T., & Williams, J. H. (2015). The backstory of education in Cambodia. In Y.
Kitamura, D. B. Edwards, C. Sitha, & J. H. Williams (Eds.), The Political Economy of
Schooling in Cambodia: Issues of Quality and Equity (pp. 15–34). Palgrave MacMillan.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). OECD186

Economic Surveys: Japan 2011. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecdeconomic-surveys-japan-2011_eco_surveys-jpn-2011-en#page3
Page, D. (2016). The multiple impacts of teacher misbehaviour. Journal of Educational
Administration, 54(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0106
Pallegedara, A. (2012). Demand for Private Tutoring in a Free Education Country: The Caseof Sri Lanka. SSRN Electronic Journal, 3(4), 375–393.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2156145
Ponce, O. A., & Pagán-Maldonado, N. (2015). Mixed methods research in education:
Capturing the complexity of the profession. International Journal of Educational
Excellence, 1(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.18562/ijee.2015.0005
Premium Times. (2020). Cambodia grants students automatic pass due to COVID-19.
Premium Times. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/foreign/431699-cambodia-grantsstudents-automatic-pass-due-to-covid19.html?fbclid=IwAR0n2NU4oihjdvbuOlnvWiDNwjOkqJ67oc7jgrNa0JBGpWBzcp_C
4CgxwnQ
Radio Free Asia. (2014). More than 70 percent of Cambodia’s high school students fail Key
Exam. Radio Free Asia. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/exam08292014201054.html
Robertson, H. (2014). Second-chance exam results released. The Cambodia Daily.
https://english.cambodiadaily.com/news/second-chance-exam-results-released-amidreforms-71592/
Royal Goverment of Cambodia. (2004). The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (inKhmer). In The Constitution of Ireland. Royal Government of Cambodia.
Royal Goverment of Cambodia. (2007). Cambodia’ educational law (in Khmer). Royal
Government of Cambodia.

187

Royal Government of Cambodia. (2008). Sub-Decree on Ethics Code For the Teaching
Profession. Royal Government of Cambodia.
Royal Government of Cambodia. (2015a). Industrial Development Policy 2015-2025: Market
Orientation and Enabling Environment for Industrial Development. Royal Governmentof Cambodia. http://www.cambodiainvestment.gov.kh/cambodia-industrialdevelopment-policy-2015-2025-3.html
Royal Government of Cambodia. (2015b). sub-decree on updating the scale of basic salary
for all public civil servants of the Kingdom of Cambodia (in Khmer). Royal Governmentof Cambodia.
Royal Government of Cambodia. (2019). Sub-decree on updating the scale of basic salary
for all public civil servants of Kindom of Cambodia (in Khmer). Royal Government of
Cambodia.
Royal Government of Cambodia. (2021). Cambodia’s sceicne, technology & innovation
roadmap 2030. Royal Government of Cambodia.
https://data.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/library_record/cambodia-s-sciencetechnology-and-innovation-roadmap-2030
Rumyantseva, N. L. (2005). Taxonomy of corruption in higher education. Peabody Journalof Education, 80(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8001_5
Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity ofretrospective reports. Spinger. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060776
Silova, I. (2009). Private supplementary tutoring in central Asia: New opportunities andburdens. UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
Silova, I., Būdienė, V., & Bray, M. (2006). Education in a hidden market: Monitoring ofprivate tutoring (Overview and country reports). In Nuevos sistemas de comunicación einformación. Open Society Institute.

188https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/394bb3b8-ef04-4f5f-85215e0b4dff389c/hidden_20070216.pdf
Soeung, S. (2020). Cambodian twelfth graders’ choice for English private tutoring: Quit or
not to quit? Teflin Journal, 31(2), 322–341.
https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v31i2/322-341
Soeung, S. (2021a). Revisiting Cambodian private tutoring: Insights into teachers’
professional misconduct. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 10(1),1–17. https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2021.10.1.0704
Soeung, S. (2021b). A review of Cambodian private tutoring: Parasitic and symbiotic
functions towards the mainstream system. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 6(1),42–58. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp42-58
Soeung, S., & Chim, V. (2022). Cambodian teachers’ perceptions of online teaching: During
and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. FIRE: Forum for International Research in
Education, 7(3), 38–53.
Sok, S., & Chhinh, N. (2018). Poverty alleviation and income inequality in Cambodia:
balancing “growth” and “development.” Asia Dialogue.
https://theasiadialogue.com/2018/09/11/poverty-alleviation-and-income-inequality-incambodia-balancing-growth-and-development/
Song, S. (2015). Cambodian teachers’ responses to child-centered instructional policies: A
mismatch between beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.004
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow Education and Allocation in Formal
Schooling : Transition to University in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6),1639–1657.
Tandon, P., & Fukao, T. (2015). Educating the next generation: Improving teacher quality in

189

Cambodia. In Directions in Development: Human Development. The World Bank.
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0417-5
Tesar, M., Hytten, K., Hoskins, T. K., Rosiek, J., Jackson, A. Y., Hand, M., Roberts, P.,
Opiniano, G. A., Matapo, J., St. Pierre, E. A., Azada-Palacios, R., Kuby, C. R., Jones,
A., Mazzei, L. A., Maruyama, Y., O’Donnell, A., Dixon-Román, E., Chengbing, W.,
Huang, Z., Chen, L., Peters, M., & Jackson, L. (2021). Philosophy of education in a new
key: Future of philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 0(0), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1946792
The Guardian. (2014). Cambodia crackdown on corruption in schools scores low with examcheats. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/2014/sep/02/cambodia-corruption-crackdown-examcheats?fbclid=IwAR10YornoqQM2-DYG8iqB6gUcusihP9ZUIUai4LvzdL78fYDZ0Hj_vFGAk
UNESCO. (2020). UIS Statistics. UIS.Stat. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
Ung, U. L., Minami, R., & Chea, P. (2021). How strong is the link between high school
streaming and university major choices? Cambodian Development Review, 25(3).
https://cdri.org.kh/publication/how-strong-is-the-link-between-high-school-streamingand-university-major-choices
Valerio, A. (2013). Private tutoring in modern times. Is it really effective? Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.148
Versta Research. (2011). How to Estimate the Length of a Survey – Versta Research. Versta
Research Newsletter. https://verstaresearch.com/newsletters/how-to-estimate-the-lengthof-a-survey/?fbclid=IwAR3ZSt7KjuVjx5HfC5WfTnPQ3eviJvO63ZyOCgZyvYVpDaVIZK6WaDj8Oc
Vickery, M. (1984). Cambodia: 1975-1982. Silkworm Books.

190

Voice of America. (2015). Cambodia: No-cheating exam rule is working. Voice of America.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/cambodian-officials-no-cheating-policyworking/2940694.html?fbclid=IwAR2ZACFemX6XI4F_fES4NoEV4RFgM238ReDqfv
U9ArWXnyLiXDCl6Z56gXc
Women’s Media Center of Cambodia. (2021). កJងសំណុំេរNងជនលកេមEសេOតុPQករណីរRេPភសTA ប់េកUង-សីេ(េខតVកំពង់Wម.
Women’s Media Centre of Cambodia. https://wmc.org.kh/article/88241/build-suspectsto-court-case-of-rape-and-murder-of-young-women-in-kampongcham/?fbclid=IwAR0k2ucAM7suAFnYdO3UP3JFGpQzTYtee_O4mrof233IRR3Krjzat
eXDB8gWorld Bank. (2019). GDP growth (annual %) - Cambodia. The World Bank.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2019&fbclid=IwAR
1n1dy8BFkS2Kwn7iNF4F4Qb6209lZB4Th3cXRzRVyGhMf28NorRJAbnA&locations=KH&start=1994&view=chart
World Bank. (2020a). Cambodia. The World Bank: Data Catalog.
https://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#&place=country/KHM&statsVar=Amount_Eco
nomicActivity_ExpenditureActivity_EducationExpenditure_Government_AsFractionOf_Amount_EconomicActivity_GrossDomesticProduction_Nominal
World Bank. (2020b). Cambodia in the time of COVID-19: Economic update. The World
Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/publication/cambodia-in-thetime-of-covid-19-coronavirus-economic-update-may-2020
World Bank. (2020c). Ranking by Government Expenditures on Education (as a percentage
of GDP): Countries in Asia. The World Bank: Data Catalog.
https://datacommons.org/ranking/Amount_EconomicActivity_ExpenditureActivity_Edu
cationExpenditure_Government_AsFractionOf_Amount_EconomicActivity_GrossDom
esticProduction_Nominal/Country/asia?h=country%2FKHM&unit=%25191

World Bank. (2022). Official exchange rate (LCU per US$, period average). The World
Bank: Data.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF?end=2021&locations=KH&start=2
007&fbclid=IwAR34hIlsTvXlnfxSilTqStgxTduZTPitRCIHuc4_JWck8DKJoocEV7Avr
jU
Yung, K. W. H. (2021). Shadow education as a form of oppression: Conceptualizing
experiences and reflections of secondary students in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 41(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1727855
Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2017). Equalising schooling, unequalising private supplementarytutoring: Access and tracking through shadow education in China. Oxford Review of
Education, 44(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710
Zhang, Y. (2015). Relationship between shadow education and examination scores:
Methodological lessons from Chiness study in senior secondary schools. In M. Bray, O.
Kwo, & B. Jokic (Eds.), Researching Private Supplementary Tutoring: MethodologicalLessons from Diverse Cultures (pp. 59–74). Comparative Education Research Centre(CERC), Springer.

192

APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Research permit issued by MoEYS

193

194

195

Appendix 2: Research ethics from university

196

19

17
16
15

Upper
Secondary

18

14

12
11
10
9
8

Basic Education

13

Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 10
Grade 9Grade 7
Grade 6
Grade 5
Grade 4
Grade 3

6

Grade 15Upper step

Pre-school

Grade 2

3

Leaving examination

Grade 87

4Baccalaureate examination

Medium step
Lower step197

Non-formal Education

20

Tracking

21

Lower
Secondary

22

Primary

23

Higher Education

24

Universities and Institutions

Appendix 3: Cambodia’s education system

Appendix 4: Expenditure on education (% of GDP) of Asian countries
People's Republic of China
Myanmar

1.97

Bangladesh
Sri Lanka

2.16

Cambodia
Bahrain
LebanonAzerbaijan
Philippines

2.65

Macau
Armenia
TurkeyKazakhstan
Singapore

2.85

Qatar
Pakistan
Laos PRD

2.94

Turkmenistan
Japan
Hong Kong
Iraq
Indonesia

3.58

JordanRussiaKuwaitEgypt
India
GeogiaIran
Afghanistan
Maldives
Mongolia
Thailand

4.12
4.13
4.17
4.43
4.53

East Timor
Vietnam
BruneiMalaysia
South Korea
Oman
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Nepal
Tajikistan
State of Palestine
UzbekistanIsrael
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Cyprus
Bhutan

0

1

2

3

Note:
ASEAN countries
Source: World Bank (2020b)

198

4

percentage

5

6

7

Appendix 5: Research settings

low-SES
provinces

medium-SES
provinces
higher-SES

high-SES provinces

Selected areas in Phnom Penh

P02
P03
P01

P06
P04
P05

199

Selected areas in Kampong Speu province

H08

H07

H09

Selected areas in Kampot province

H11
H10
H12

200

Selected areas in Steung Treng province

M14
M13
M15

Selected areas in Tboung Khum province

M17
M16

M18

201

Selected areas in Battambang province

L19

L20
L21

Selected areas in Koh Kong province

L23

L22

L24

202

Appendix 6: Written consent form

!ប#នបទ!&វ!(វResearch topic:

ក+, ជះឥទ0ិពលេល5ផ7ត់គំនិតៃន=រេរ?ននិងបេ!ងAនគួរ េCវDទEល័យក7Hង!បេទសកមKH(
Factors Influencing Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper Secondary
SchoolsលិខិតបMN ក់=រយល់!ពមចូលរួមផ,ល់បទសQR សន,៍ ស!Qប់=រ!&វ!(វConsent Letter for Interviewing Informants

១. ខUHំVទ/WងខUHំេXY ះ ___________________________ ឯក[ពេ\យសY័!គចិត,េដ5ម^ី ផ,ល់បទ
សQR សន៍ ស!Qប់=រសិក`!&វ!(វេល5!ប#នបទដូចaងេល5។
I ________________ voluntarily participate in interviewing for this research study.

២. ខUHំVទ!(បចdស់e ខUHំេCែតgចដកខhiនេចញVនេCេពលkក៏Vន ឬបដិេសធមិនឲpេ!ប5!Vស់ចេមh5យkមួយក៏Vនេ\យមិនQនផលលំVកអrីេឡ5យ។
I understand that even if I agree to participate now, I can withdraw at any time or refuse
to answer any question without any consequences of any kind.

៣. ខUHំVទ!(បចdស់e ខUHំgចសុំមិនេgយេ!ប5!Vស់បទសQR សន៍របស់ខUHំ ក7Hងរយៈេពល២ (ពីរ) សV, ហ៍បWx ប់ពី=រសQR សន៍(មួយខUHំVនចប់សពr!គប់ េហ5យែខyសេមhងែដរVនថតត!ម{វេgយេធr5=រលុបេ|ល}ំង!សHង។I understand that I can withdraw permission to use data from my interview within two
weeks after the interview, in which case the material will be deleted.

៤. ខUHំVទVន!(បចdស់ពីវតHបំណង និង=រេ!ប5!Vស់ព័ត៌QនេCក7Hង=រ!&វ!(វ និងមូលេហតុែដលខUHំ!ត{វVនេ!ជ5សេរÇស។I have had the purpose and nature of the study explained to me in writing and I have
had the opportunity to ask questions about the study.

៥. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e ខUHំមិនVនទទួល!បេÑជន៍េ\យÖx ល់ពី=រចូលរួមក7Hង=រ!&វ!(វេនះេទ។
I understand that I will not benefit directly from participating in this research.

៦. ខUHំយល់!សបេgយថតសេមhង =រសQR សន៍របស់ខUHំ។
I agree to my interview being audio-recorded.

៧. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e àល់ព័ត៌QនែដលខUHំVនផ,ល់ជូន នឹង!ត{វេ!ប5!Vស់េ\យរក`=រសQä ត់។
I understand that all information I provide for this study will be treated confidentially.
203៨. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e េCក7Hង=រàយ=រណ៍លទ0ផល!&វ!(វេនះ អត,សMå ណរបស់ខUHំ!ត{វVនេ!ប5 (អWមិក ឬ អត,សMå ណជំនួស។ មE៉ងេទ?ត េXY ះអ7កែដលខUHំេល5កមកនិÑយនឹង!ត{វVនេ!ប5!Vស់េXY ះែបបអត,សMå ណជំនួស ែដលមិនgចéយតៃមhដឹងVនេ\យអ7កgន។
I understand that in any report on the results of this research my identity will remain
anonymous. This will be done by changing my name and disguising any details of myinterview which may reveal my identity or the identity of people I speak about.

៩. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e ព័ត៌Qនរបស់ខUHំក7Hងអត,សMå ណជំនួស gចនឹង!ត{វVនដក!សងÖx ល់ស!Qប់រVយ=រ!&វ!(វ។ មE៉ងេទ?ត àល់ព័ត៌Qនរបស់ខUHំនឹង!ត{វVនេ!ប5!Vស់ស!Qប់៖ និេកëបបទបíìប់=រសិក` បឋ
កeក7Hងសន7ិVតឬសិ=ë&ï =រេVះពុមKអតបទ!&!(វ។I understand that disguised extracts from my interview may be quoted in writing thisreport. Additionally, all information in my interview will be used for writing his
dissertation, presentation in conference and workshop, and writing academic articles
for publications.

១០. ខUHំVន!(បe លិខិតឯក[ពែដលVនចុះហតេលaរួចេនះ និងចdប់េដ5មរបស់បទសQR សន៍ែដលVនថតសេមhង !ត{វVនរក`ទុកេCេóកែនhងសុវតិ[ព េ\យQន=រេរ?បចំេលខសQä ត់សុវតិ[ព និងQនែតអ7ក!&វ!(វែតប៉ុេkòះ ែដលgចចូលក7Hងកែនhងសុវតិ[ពេWះេដ5ម^ីេ!ប5!Vស់ព័ត៌Qន។ ប៉ុែន,េ\យ អ7ក!&វ!(វ(និសyិត ôត់gចេ!ប5!Vស់ និងរក`ទុកéVនរហូតដល់គណៈកមY=រ!បឡងVនបMN ក់ លទ0
ផល=រសិក`របស់ôត់ចប់សពr!គប់ េហ5យôត់gចបöõ ញគណៈកមY=រ!បឡងរបស់ôត់េប5|Vំ ច់។
I understand that signed consent letter and original recordings will be retained in asecurity place with passcodes. Only the researcher who can access to that place forthose pieces of information. Since the researcher is a doctoral student, he can keep
information of my interview until his examination committees confirm the results of
his examination. He also can show it to his examination committee in case of necessity.

១១. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e ស!មង់បទសQR សន៍(សំេណរ ែដលអត,សMå ណ!ត{វVនដកេចញ +ម=រឯក[ពេCចំណុចទី!Vំបី (៨) !ត{វVនរក`ទុក រយៈេពលដប់ (១០) ú7 េំ !=យ=រ!បឡងរបស់ôត់Vនបíìប់។I understand that a transcript of my interview in which all identifying information has
been removed (as mentioned in No. 8) will be retained for ten (10) years from the dateof his examination.

១២. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e ខUHំgចចូលេóពិនិតpេម5លអតបទសQR សន,៍របស់ខUHំេCកែនhងរក` ដូចែចងក7Hងចំណុច
ទី!Vំបួន (៩) ទុកេពលkក៏Vន +មេលខសQä ត់សុវតិ[ពពីអ7ក!&វ!(វ។
204

I understand that under freedom of information legalization I am entitled to access theinformation I have provided at any time while it is in storage as specified in No. 9 byrequesting passcodes from the researcher.

១៣. ខUHំ!(បចdស់e ខUHំgច}ក់ទងេóបុគùលkែដលûក់ព័ន0ក7Hង=រ!&វ!(វេនះ Vនេដ5ម^ីែសrងយល់ពីព័ត៌Qន និងេដ5ម^ី[ពចdស់ïស់េល5ព័ត៌Qន។
I understand that I am free to contact any of the people involved in the research to seek
further clarification and information.

អ7ក!&វ!(វេXY ះ េសüង សុÖ (!គ{ឧេទxសឧត,មសិក`ៃនវDទE& ន(តិអប់រ° និងសពrៃថä(និសyិត e7 ក់បណ¢ ិតែផ7កអប់រ°ៃន&កលវDទEល័យេហរ£ូសុីQ៉ !បេទសជប៉ុន។ ទំWក់ទំនង+ម &រេអឡិច!ត{និចsoeungsopha@gmail.com ឬេតេឡ!=មេលខ៖ ០៧១ ៥៥៥៥ ៧៩៨។A researcher, named Soeung Sopha, is a trainer at National Institute of Education, and ispursuing a doctoral degree in Education at Hiroshima University, Japan. Email:soeungsopha@gmail.com or Telegram number: (+855) 71-5555-798.

ហតេលaអ7កយល់!ពមសQR សន៍៖ ខUHំសូមបMN ក់e ខUHំពិត(Vនgន និងយល់!ពមេល5 លិខិតឯក[ពចូលរួមេនះពិត!Vកដែមន េ\យចុះហតេលa និងេXY ះេដ5ម^ីបMN ក់។
Interviewee: I would like to declare that I have read and agreed all points mentioned above.
As an evidence, I agree to sign with my name on this paper.
___________________

េXY ះ ___________________ =លបរDេច§ទយល់!ពម _________________________________ Full name: _____________________ Date: ___________________

ហតេលaអ7ក!&វ!(វ៖ ខUHំសូមបMN ក់e លិខិតឯក[ពចូលរួមេនះពិត(Vនgន និងយល់!ពមចុះ
ហតេលaបMN ក់=រយល់!ពមពីអ7កចូលរួមដូចQនWមaងេល5ពិត!Vកដែមន។
Researcher: I believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study.

___________________

េXY ះ េសüង សុÖ =លបរDេច§ទទទួលVន ____________________________________

Full name:……………………

Soeung Sopha

Date: ___________________

ឯក&េនះQនែតពីរទំព័រគត់ មិនQនឯក&[N ប់េឡ5យ …………………

…………This consent letter has only two pages without any attached file…….….

205

Appendix 7a: Self-reported survey questionnaire for schoolteachers
Dear Respondents,
I am Soeung Sopha, a doctoral student at Hiroshima University, Japan. To fulfill therequirements of my doctoral program, I am conducting a study entitled Factors Influencing
Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper Secondary Schools. This study aims
to explore factors influencing the perceptions of demanding and supplying private tutoring in
Cambodian upper secondary schools further to the examination reform.
I would declare that your identity will remain anonymous in any report of this study results.
Additionally, your information is surely kept confidential in all circumstances. If there is any
information is leaked, I will lawfully responsible.
Thank you so much for your kindness and cooperation. Should you contact us for any inquiry
related to this study through soeungsopha@gmail.com or Telegram: (+855)71-5555-798.
___________________________________________________________________________*Consent
We would like to invite you to voluntarily participate in our survey. Your information is goingto use for only academic purpose including writing dissertation, presenting in local andinternational conference, and writing research articles for publication. Your identity is usedanonymously in study reports. If you voluntarily give us opportunity to use your information
for the above purpose, please kindly choose the bottom ‘Agree’, or ‘Disagree’ in case you do
not wish to offer.
Agree(continue to the next section)

Disagree(submit)___________________________________________________________________________
Participant Code [assigned by the researcher]: ________________SECTION I: Personal Information
1. Gender:

1 Female

2 Male2. Year you were born: _____________
3. What is your highest level of teaching profession which you obtained?
1 Lower secondary level
2 Upper secondary level

4. Choose the main subject you are teaching during this schoolyear (2020-2021)(Choose ONE only)206

1 Mathematics

6 Khmer composition

2 Physics

3 Geography

3 Chemistry

3 Earth environment

4 Biology

3 Moral-civics

5 History

3 Language (English/French)

5. Choose group(s) you are teaching this schoolyear (2020-2021)? (Choose ONE only)
1 Social science class
2 Science class
3 Both

6. Your highest qualification:
7 Doctoral degree

3 Pursuing doctoral degree

6 Master’s degree

2 Pursuing master’s degree

5 Bachelor’s degree

1 Pursuing bachelor’s degree

4 Upper secondary school degree

7. Do you live in the same area where you work?
2 Yes, I am a local
1 No, I commute to work every day

SECTION II: Your Family
8. Choose your status:
4 Married
3 Divorced with kid(s)2 Single(Skip to question 12)

1 Divorced without kid(s)(Skip to question 12)*About your spouse
9. Your spouse’s occupation (Choose ONLY one)
1 Housewife/Unemployed
2 Retiree
3 Simple income generator (e.g., motordub, taxi driver, hairdresser, seller…)
4 Overseas worker
5 Farmer (rent land)
6 Farmer (own land less than 1 hectare)
7 Farmer (own land bigger than 1 hectare)
8 Teacher
9 Government staff (NOT teacher)207

10 Private company staff
11 Local organization staff
12 Non-government organization staff
13 Vendor (e.g., gold, construction materials, restaurant, hotel,…)
14 Others (please specify: _______________)

10. Your spouse’s qualification (Choose ONE only)
1 Primary level

5 Master’s degree

2 Lower secondary level

6 Doctoral degree

3 Upper secondary level

7 Others (Please specify: _________)

4 Bachelor’s degree

11. How many children are under your care? (Choose ONE only)
1 I do not have

4 Three children

2 One child

5 Four children

3 Two children

6 Five children

SECTION III: About your home
12. Source of water for your daily use (Choose ONE only)
1 Buy

5 Well2 River/pond

6 Hygiene water

3 Rain7 Running water

4 Pumping water

8 Others (please specify: _________)

13. Source of light for your daily use (Choose ONE only)
1 Candle

4 Generator

2 Lantern

5 Electricity/solar panel

3 Battery

6 Others (please specify: _________)

14. Number of bedrooms in your home (Choose ONE only)
1 No room

4 Three rooms

2 One room

5 More than three rooms

3 Two rooms

15. Materials of your wall (Choose ONE only)
1 Used materials

5 Wooden

2 Bamboo/Thatch/palm tree leaves

6 Cement brick

3 Zine7 Others (please specify: _________)

4 Asbestos

16. Materials of your roof (Choose ONE only)208

1 Used materials

5 Asbestos

2 Tent6 Roofing tiles

3 Thatch/palm tree leaves

7 Cement roof

4 Zine8 Others (please specify: _________)

17. Materials of your floor (Choose ONE only)
1 Nothing but soil

5 Tile2 Bamboo

6 Good plywood

3 Simple plywood

7

Others (please specify: _________)

4 Cement floor

18. Type of toilet you have (Choose ONE only)
1 No toilet

5 Unflushed toilet

2 Public toilet

6 Flushed toilet

3 Pit latrine

7 Others (please specify: _________)

4 Blair toilet

19. Something you use cook your daily meals (Choose ONE only)
1 Wood sticks

5 Cooking gas

2 Coal6 Electricity

3 Wood sticks and coal

7 Cooking gas and electricity

4 Petroleum

8 Not cook

20. Do you have house/rooms/land for rent?

2 Yes

1 No

21. Do you have store/car for rent?

2 Yes

1 No

22. Are you using a loan now?

2 Yes

1 No

SECTION IV: Perceptions of teaching and learning
23. The following statements are about Public School. To what extent do you agree?
(Choose ONE for each statement)
Statements
1. Government salary is low.

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

Absolutely No
disagree

idea

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

2. Instructional time is not enough toensure knowledge and skills as
required by the national syllabus.
3. Teachers are required to use
learner-based approach during school

209

hours, so we need more time to
explain students in detail aboutprescribed knowledge and skills.
4. Students can learn only theories
with few practices.
5. Class size is too big.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

24. Where do the following activities happen the most? (Choose ONE for eachstatement)
Activities

In bothMainstream Tutoring

Never inNo

classesclassesclasses

both classes

idea

1. Group work

5

4

3

2

1

2. Individual work

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5. Precise explanation

5

4

3

2

1

6. Assign more homework

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

3. Focus on theories with few
practices
4. Summarized and dictatedlessons

7. Respond most students’questions
8. More practices onknowledge and skills
9. Practice previous years’
examination exercises
10. Active interaction
between teachers and students
11. Main purpose is tocomplete the syllabus
12. Main purpose is tostrengthen students’knowledge and skills

210

SECTION V: About Private Tutoring
25. During schoolyear 2018-2019, Did you supply private tutoring?
2 Yes, I am
1 No, I am not(Skip to question 27)

26. Who are your private tutees the most by tutoring types? (Choose ALL the apply to
you and then skip to Question 29)
Private tutoring Regular private Special private

Subjects

during holiday

My students

tutoring

tutoring

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Students of other classes in myschoolStudents from other schools
Relatives/friends’

relativesorchildren

27. Why didn’t you offer private tutoring during 2018-2019? (Choose only ONE)
1 My subject is not an examination subject
2 My subject is an examination subject, but its scores are not important
3 Students can learn my subject by their own through memorization
4 I need time to help my family’s business
5 I need time for my housework
6 I work for private school
7 I have a part-time job (e.g., NGOs, private company, …)
8 I have my own business
9 Government salary is good enough
10 I do not want parents or students devalue your teaching profession
11 Learning at mainstream school is good enough for students
12 Earns from private tutoring cannot compensate my time and commitment
13 My family economy is good enough for me to survive
14 My subject is an examination subject, but its scores are not important
15 My subject is not an examination subject
16 Others (please specify: __________________________________)

211

28. During schoolyear 2019-2020 (BEFORE school closure), Did you supply private
tutoring?
2 Yes, I am
1 No, I am not

29. During schoolyear 2019-2020 (DURING school closure), Did you supply private
tutoring?
2 Yes, I am
1 No, I am not

30. Are you supplying private tutoring this academic year (2020-2021)?
2 Yes, I am
1 No, I am not(Skip to question 33)

31. Choose subject(s) and type(s) of private tutoring you are supplying (Choose ALL
apply to you)
Subjects

Onlineprivate Regular private Special private Work for private

tutoring

tutoring

tutoring

schoolMathematics

1

2

3

4

Physics

1

2

3

4

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

Biology

1

2

3

4

History

1

2

3

4

Khmer

1

2

3

4

Geography

1

2

3

4

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

Moral-Civics

1

2

3

4

Language

1

2

3

4

Others1

2

3

4

32. Who are your private tutees the most? (Choose ALL apply to you)
Subjects

Online private Regular private Special private
tutoring

tutoring

tutoring

My students

1

2

3

Students of other classes in my school

1

2

3

Students from other schools

1

2

3

212

Relatives/friends’ relatives/children

1

2

3

Private school students

1

2

3

33. Please choose the reason you are NOT supplying private tutoring this schoolyear?
(Choose only ONE)
1 My subject is not an examination subject
2 My subject is an examination subject, but its scores are not important
3 Students can learn my subject by their own through memorization
4 I need time to help my family’s business
5 I need time for my housework
6 I have a part-time job (e.g., NGOs, private company, private school…)
7 I have my own business
8 Government salary is good enough9 I do not want parents or students devalue your teaching profession
10 Learning at mainstream school is good enough for students
11 Earns from private tutoring cannot compensate my time and commitment
12 My family economy is good enough for me to survive
13 My subject is an examination subject, but its scores are not important
14 My subject is not an examination subject
15 Others (please specify: __________________________________)SECTION VI: Inviting for interviewing stage
34. We would like to invite you to voluntarily participate in our interviewing stage. Are
you willing to join?
1 Yes, I am
2 No, I am not(If NO, please submit)

35. Please choose your best means that you think we can contact you for interviewing
1 Facebook messenger

5 Skype2 Telegram

6 Google meet

3 Line7 Zoom

4 Viber 58.

36. Please write your account name or address of the selected choice above________________________________________________
Thank you so much for your time and honest responses.
213

Appendix 7b: Self-reported survey questionnaire for students
Dear Respondents,
I am Soeung Sopha, a doctoral student at Hiroshima University, Japan. To fulfill therequirements of my doctoral program, I am conducting a study entitled Factors Influencing
Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper Secondary Schools. This study aims
to explore factors influencing the perceptions of demanding and supplying private tutoring in
Cambodian upper secondary schools further to the examination reform.
I would declare that your identity will remain anonymous in any report of this study results.
Additionally, your information is surely kept confidential in all circumstances. If there is any
information is leaked, I will lawfully responsible.
Thank you so much for your kindness and cooperation. Should you contact us for any inquiry
related to this study through soeungsopha@gmail.com or Telegram: (855)71-5555-798.
___________________________________________________________________________*Consent
We would like to invite you to voluntarily participate in our survey. Your information is goingto use for only academic purpose including writing dissertation, presenting in local andinternational conference, and writing research articles for publication. Your identity is usedanonymously in study reports. If you voluntarily give us opportunity to use your information
for the above purpose, please kindly choose the bottom ‘Agree’, or ‘Disagree’ in case you do
not wish to offer.
Agree(continue to the next section)

Disagree(submit)___________________________________________________________________________
Participant Code [assigned by researcher]: ________________SECTION I: Personal information
1. Gender:

1 Female

2 Male2. Your learning track:

1 Science

2 Social science

SECTION II: Perceptions of teaching and learning
3. The following statements are about your public school. To what extent do you
agree? (Choose ONE choice for each statement)
Statements

Absolutely
agree

214

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagreeidea

1. Teachers teach lessons so fast.

5

4

3

2

1

2. Teachers focus much on theories.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5. Teachers give few practices.

5

4

3

2

1

6. Teachers give tough homework.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

3. Teachers cannot cover entire
syllabus.
4. Teachers do not explain lesson indetail.

7. Teachers emphasize tests before
test dates.
8. Teachers allow tutees to checkcheat sheet during the tests.
9. Instructional hours for coreexamination are not enough.
10. Class is too large.
11. If I do not take private tutoringwith her/him, I will never get good
grade.
12. If I do not take private tutoringwith her/him, I do not feel
comfortable during lesson.
4. To what extent do you agree with the below statements about what you receive
when taking private tutoring (Choose ONE choice for each statement)
Statements
1. Teaching is easy to understand.

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagree

idea

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

2. Gain more techniques and skills for
examinations.
3. Can practice previous years’
examination tests.
4. Have more chances to ask
questions.

215

5. Can have good relationship with
our teachers.
6. Receive more care from teachers.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

7. Improve my academic
achievement.

5. The following statements are about influence from others. To what extent do you
agree? (Choose ONE choice for each statement)
Statements

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagreeidea

1. If many of my friends take private
tutoring classes, so I do too.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

2. My parent/relative chose tutoringclasses for me.
3. My teachers recommended tutoringclasses for me.
4. My principal recommended us totake tutoring classes.
5. I do not want to be different fromothers.

6. To what extent do you agree that private tutoring has improved your _________?
(Choose one choice for each statement)
Statements

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagreeidea

1. Examination grades

5

4

3

2

1

2. Relationship with schoolteachers

5

4

3

2

1

3. Confidence in examinations

5

4

3

2

1

4. Revision skills

5

4

3

2

1

5. Confidence in school performance

5

4

3

2

1

6. Learning strategies

5

4

3

2

1

216

SECTION III: Private tutoring engagement
7. Did you take private tutoring in schoolyear 2018-2019?
1 Yes, I did
2 No, I didn’t(Skip to question 9)

8. Choose subject(s) and your tutor(s) (Choose ALL that apply)
Subjects

Own
teacher

Teacher

Teacher at

Tutorialof otheranotherschool/classesschoolcenterRetiree

University

Best

student

teacherMathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. Did you take private tutoring in academic year 2019-2020 (before the school
closure)?
1 Yes, I did
2 No, I didn’t(Skip to question 12)

10. if YES, please choose subject(s) and type(s) you took (Choose ALL apply to you)

Subjects

OnlineRegularSpecialPrivatePrivateSame typetutoring

privateprivatetutoring

tutoringbuttutoring

tutoring

during school at private

different

holiday

schooltutor

Mathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

217

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

11. Choose subject(s) and your tutor(s)Subjects

Own
teacher(Choose ALL that apply to you)

Teacher

Teacher

Tutorialof otherat anotherschool/classesschoolcenterRetiree

University

Best

student

teacherMathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12. Did you take private tutoring during the school closure (2019-2020)?
1 Yes, I did
2 No, I didn’t

13. Are you taking private tutoring this academic year (2020 - 2021)?
1 Yes
2 No

(Skip to question 20)

14. Choose subject(s) and your tutor(s)Subjects

Own
teacher(Choose ALL that apply)

Teacher

Teacher at

Tutorialof otheranotherschool/classesschoolcenterRetiree

University

Best

student

teacherMathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

218

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15. Choose all private tutoring types you are taking (Choose ALL that apply to you)

Subjects

OnlineRegularSpecialPrivatePrivateSame typetutoring

privateprivatetutoring

tutoringbuttutoring

tutoring

during school at private

different

holiday

schooltutor

Mathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

16. How do you know your tutor(s)? (Choose ALL that apply to you)
Subjects

My

Formerteacher teachers

FriendParent/relative

Through ads

recommended

recommended(leaflet, social app)

Mathematics

1

2

3

4

5

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

219

History

1

2

3

4

5

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

Language

1

2

3

4

5

17. How many hours are you taking private tutoring per week each subject? (Choose
ALL that apply to you)
Subjects

>10hs

>7hs

7hs

6hs

5hs

4hs

3hs

2hs

1hs

Mathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

18. Choose tutoring fee per-month in Khmer Riel for tutoring subjects that you aretaking.
Subjects

20,00025,00030,00035,00040,000>40,000

Mathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

220

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

*Reasons for NOT taking private tutoring
19. The following statements are about reasons you are NOT TAKING private
tutoring this schoolyear (2020-2021). To what extent do you agree? (Choose ONE choicefor each statement)
AbsolutelyStatements

agree

1. My family cannot afford it.

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagree

idea

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5. I need time to help housework.

5

4

3

2

1

6. I need to earn for living.

5

4

3

2

1

7. My home is far from school.

5

4

3

2

1

8. I do not have own transportation.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

11. I do not really like my tutors.

5

4

3

2

1

12. I will not continue to university.

5

4

3

2

1

2. I am in social science track, so I do
not need PT.
3. I can do well in all examination
subjects on my own.
4. I need time to support my family’sbusiness.

9. Teaching is good enough at
mainstream school.
10. Results of national examination is
not important to me.

20. Did you take private tutoring when you were in grade 9?
1 Yes
2 No

(Skip to question 22)

21. Choose subject(s) and your tutor(s)Subjects

Own
teacher

Teacherof otherclasses

Teacher
at(Choose ALL that apply)
Tutorial
school/center

221

Retiree

University

Best

student

teacheranotherschoolMathematics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Physics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chemistry

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Biology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Khmer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

History

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Geography

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Earth environ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Moral civics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Language

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

22. Are you going to further your study at university?
5 Yes, I am

2 I will follow my parent’s decision

4 No, I am not

1 I have no idea

3 I am not sure yet

23. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about schoolteachers’
teaching at your public school? (Choose ONE choice for each statement)
Statements
1. Teachers skip some contents.

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagree

idea

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

2. Teachers do not have time forquestions.
3. Teachers give more care to theirown tutees.
4. Teachers often call non-tutees ortutees with other teachers to solve
homework or exercises at the board.
5. Teachers give higher scores to theirown tutees.
6. Teachers explain very briefly.

222

7. Teachers teach only theories withfew practices.
8. Teachers teach lessons with care.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

9. Teachers are friendly andapproachable.
10. Teachers are fair to everyone.
SECTION IV: Contact Information
24. Are you willing to join the interview stage voluntarily?
1 Yes, I will
2 No, I will not(if NO, please submit)

25. Please choose your best means that you think we can contact you for interviewing
1 Facebook messenger

5 Skype2 Telegram

6 Google meet

3 Line7 Zoom

4 Viber

26. Please write your account name or address of the selected choice above________________________________________________
Thank you so much for your time and honest responses.

223

Appendix 7c: Self-reported survey questionnaire for parents
Dear Respondents,
I am Soeung Sopha, a doctoral student at Hiroshima University, Japan. To fulfill therequirements of my doctoral program, I am conducting a study entitled Factors Influencing
Engagement of Private Tutoring at Cambodian Upper Secondary Schools. This study aims
to explore factors influencing the perceptions of demanding and supplying private tutoring in
Cambodian upper secondary schools further to the examination reform.
I would declare that your identity will remain anonymous in any report of this study results.
Additionally, your information is surely kept confidential in all circumstances. If there is any
information is leaked, I will lawfully responsible.
Thank you so much for your kindness and cooperation. Should you contact us for any inquiry
related to this study through soeungsopha@gmail.com or Telegram: (855)71-5555-798.
___________________________________________________________________________*Consent
We would like to invite you to voluntarily participate in our survey. Your information is goingto use for only academic purpose including writing dissertation, presenting in local andinternational conference, and writing research articles for publication. Your identity is usedanonymously in study reports. If you voluntarily give us opportunity to use your information
for the above purpose, please kindly choose the bottom ‘Agree’, or ‘Disagree’ in case you do
not wish to offer.
Agree(continue to the next section)
Disagree (submit)___________________________________________________________________________
Participant Code [assigned by researcher]: ____________________________SECTION I: Personal information* About MOTHER:
1. Year you were born: _____________
2. Your highest qualification:
1 Primary level

6 Doctoral

2 Lower secondary certificates

5 Master’s degree

3 Upper secondary certificates

7 Post-doctoral

4 Bachelor’s degree224

3. When did you quit or complete general education level (Grade 1 – 12)? _________
4. Your occupation:
1 Housewife/Unemployed
2 Retiree
3 Simple income generator (e.g., motordub, taxi driver, hairdresser, seller…)
4 Overseas worker
5 Farmer (rent land)
6 Farmer (own land less than 1 hectare)
7 Farmer (own land bigger than 1 hectare)
8 Teacher
9 Government staff (NOT teacher)
10 Private company staff
11 Local organization staff
12 Non-government organization staff
13 Vendor (e.g., gold, construction materials, restaurant, hotel,…)
14 Others (please specify: _______________)* About FATHER:
5. Year you were born: _____________
6. Your highest qualification:
1 Primary level

6 Doctoral

2 Lower secondary certificates

5 Master’s degree

3 Upper secondary certificates

7 Post-doctoral

4 Bachelor’s degree

7. When did you quit or complete general education level (Grade 1 – 12)? _______
8. Your occupation:
1 Housewife/Unemployed
2 Retiree
3 Simple income generator (e.g., motordub, taxi driver, hairdresser, seller…)
4 Overseas worker
5 Farmer (rent land)
6 Farmer (own land less than 1 hectare)
7 Farmer (own land bigger than 1 hectare)
8 Teacher
9 Government staff (NOT teacher)225

10 Private company staff
11 Local organization staff
12 Non-government organization staff
13 Vendor (e.g., gold, construction materials, restaurant, hotel, …)
14 Others (please specify: _______________)*About both mother and father
9. Did you take private tutoring during your schooling?
Yes, I did

No, I did notMother1

2

Father

1

2

SECTION II: About your home
10. How many children are now under your support? ___________
11. Source of water for your daily use (Choose only ONE)
1 Buy

5 Well2 River/pond

6 Hygiene water

3 Rain7 Running water

4 Pumping water

8 Others (please specify: _________)

12. Source of light for your daily use (Choose only ONE)
1 Candle

4 Generator

2 Lantern

5 Electricity/solar panel

3 Battery

6 Others (please specify: _________)

13. Number of bedrooms in your home (Choose only ONE)
1 No room

4 Three rooms

2 One room

5 More than three rooms

3 Two rooms

14. Materials of your wall (Choose ONLY one)
1 Used materials

5 Wooden

2 Bamboo/Thatch/palm tree leaves

6 Cement brick

3 Zine7 Others (please specify: _________)

4 Asbestos

15. Materials of your roof (Choose only ONE)
1 Used materials

5 Asbestos

226

2 Tent

6 Roofing tiles

3 Thatch/palm tree leaves

7 Cement roof

4 Zine8 Others (please specify: _________)

16. Materials of your floor (Choose ONLY one)
1 Nothing but soil

5 Tile2 Bamboo

6 Good plywood

3 Simple plywood

7

Others (please specify: _________)

4 Cement floor

17. Type of toilet you have (Choose only ONE)
1 No toilet

5 Unflushed toilet

2 Public toilet

6 Flushed toilet

3 Pit latrine

7 Others (please specify: _________)

4 Blair toilet

18. Something you use cook your daily meals (Choose only ONE)
1 Wood sticks

5 Cooking gas

2 Coal6 Electricity

3 Wood sticks and coal

7 Cooking gas and electricity

4 Petroleum

8 Not cook

19. Do you have house/rooms/land for rent?
2 Yes

1 No

20. Do you have store/car for rent?
2 Yes

1 No

21. Are you using the bank loan?
1 Yes, I am

2 No, I am not

22. Are you using the informal loan?
1 Yes, I am

2 No, I am not

SECTION III: About private tutoring
23. Are you going to send your child (the 12th grade one) to study at university?
5 Yes, I am

2 I will follow his/her decision

4 No, I am not

1 I have no idea

3 I am not sure yet

24. Is your child, who is in 12th grade, taking private tutoring?
1 Yes

227

2 No (Skip to question 26)

25. The following statements are about reasons on investing private tutoring forher/him. To what extent do you agree? (Choose one choice for each statement)
Statements

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagreeidea

1. S/he cannot learn well in school, so
I want her/him to learn entire school

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

syllabus.
2. It is impossible for her/him tosucceed in examination by not taking
private tutoring.
3. I feel better that I can afford her/his
private tutoring.
4. Everyone around her/him is taking
private tutoring and I do not want
her/him to fall behind others.
5. I do not think the learning quality
at school is good enough.
6. I need additional support fromprivate tutoring because I thinkcoursebook is hard for her/him tounderstand on her/himself.
7. Instructional time for is not enoughfor schoolteachers to explain allcontents in coursebook.
8. Private tutoring helps her/him
better understand lessons.
9. Most of my friends send theirchildren to private tutoring classes. I
have to do so too.

228

26. The following sentences are about reasons this student is NOT taking private
tutoring. To what extent do you agree with the following sentences? (Choose one choice foreach statement)
Statements

Absolutely
agree

Agree Disagree

AbsolutelyNo

disagreeidea

1. We wish he could take private
tutoring, but we cannot afford this.

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

2. Her/his learning track is social
sciences.
3. She/he can learn all examination
subjects well by themselves.
4. We need her/him to help our familybusiness.
5. We need her/him to help
housework.
6. We need her/him to help for familyliving.
7. We wish he could take private
tutoring, but our home is far fromschool.
8. We cannot afford to buy her/him
transportation means (i.e., motorbike),so she/he cannot go for private
tutoring.
9. Teaching at mainstream school isgood enough.
10. I don't think the results of national
examination (Grade 12) is important
to her/him.
11. She/he will not continue touniversity.

229

SECTION IV: Inviting for interviewing stage
27. We would like to invite you to voluntarily participate in our interviewing stage. Are
you willing to join?
1 Yes, I am

2 No, I am not(If NO, please submit)

28. Please choose your best means that you think we can contact you for interviewing
1 Facebook messenger

5 Skype2 Telegram

6 Google meet

3 Line7 Zoom

4 Viber

29. Please write your account name or address of the selected choice above________________________________________________
Thank you so much for your time and honest responses.

230

Appendix 8a: Interview protocol for schoolteachers•

Moderator: Self-introduction, purpose of the study, and reasons that the informant was
selected. Additionally, all pints stated in the consent form for interview with theinformant to re-confirm their voluntary participation.

•

Informant: Self-introduction including occupation and track(s) as well as teaching
grade(s), year of birth, year started teaching profession and teaching specialization, andgroups of students (science/social science) you are teaching, brief education history.

I. As a teacher
1. Opening: Scale of private tutoring
I am really interested in the private tutoring received by students especially 12th graders.
•

How many percent of 12th graders took and are taking private tutoring?

•

What type of private tutoring is more popular?

2. Why students go for private tutoring?
•

Do you why 12th graders invest in private tutoring?

•

What can they receive from private tutoring that they may not get in school?

•

How private tutoring improve students’ learning? Can you explain me more withsome examples if you can?
Who required private tutoring?

•

What level of income families are most of them from, do you think?

•

Are there differences between science and social science students?

3. Teaching attitude•

How do you think about students taking private tutoring of your subject?

•

Does private tutoring change your way of teaching in school? More challenging or
easier? How can it effect your teaching? Can you give some examples?

•

How do students know that you are going to offer private tutoring? Including time
and type?

•

Can you tell me your teaching style that you frequently use during school hours?
What about in private tutoring class?

4. The impacts on students•

Does private tutoring work to increase students’ achievement?

•

Are students taking private tutoring still interested in classes during school hour?

•

Have you observed any tensions in class during school hour because some of them
are not taking private tutoring? Can you elaborate more on this?
231

•Are there any influences on relationship in school between students and students
and teachers?

•

Do you think private tutoring burden students’ families?

5. Teachers as tutors•

Have you ever offered private tutoring to your students?
o If so, ….
§ When did you offer private tutoring?
§ How did you feel about that experience?
o If NOT, ….
§

Did your students ever make that request?

§

Did you ever think that you want to accept their request?

§

Do you remember why you did not accept their request?

6. At your school•

Has your school (vice-)principal ever encouraged teachers to offer private
tutoring? If so, can you tell me why she/he does so? How did s/he encourageteachers?

•

Has school (vice-)principal ever encouraged students to take private tutoring? If
so, do you know why s/he encourage them? In what way/when did s/he encourage
them?

•

Do you think your school is different from or similar to other upper secondary
school in term of private tutoring? Any examples?

7. Society•

Have you ever heard any reactions from community, parents or society in general?

•Do you think society should or should not encourage private tutoring? Why do
you think so?

•

Taking about the future, do you expect private tutoring to be regulated or changed
its nature of service? If so, why?

II. As a student
8. Can you tell me about your private tutoring when you were a student?
•

Did you take private tutoring when you were a student?

•

Can you tell me when you first started to take private tutoring? On what subject?

•

What happened at the time that made you feel you need to take private tutoring?

•

Who suggested / recommended it? Can you give me some examples?

232

•

What type(s) of private tutoring did you take – regular or special private tutoring,private school?

•

Do you remember how it went?

9. Closing•

Do you have anything else about private tutoring that you think you can share
more with me?

Thank you so much for your time participating in this study’s interview process!

233

Appendix 8b: Interview protocol for students
1. Opening•

Moderator: Self-introduction, purpose of the study, and reasons that the informant was
selected. Additionally, inform the informant all points stated in the consent form forinterview with the informant to re-confirm their voluntary participation.

•

Informant: Self-introduction including grade and class (e.g., G12A), learning track(science or social science), year of birth, and brief education history such as transfer fromanother school/province (if so, reasons for transferring).
Questions for interviewing students WITH private tutoring

2. Facts about private tutoring
1. I am really interested to understand more about private tutoring in Cambodia, particularof Grade 12 students at upper secondary school.
•

When did you first started to take PT? On what subject and what type of private
tutoring if you can remember?

•

Whom did you take that/those private tutoring class(es) with?

•

Why did you decide to take private tutoring at that time?

•

Did you decide that by yourself, or did anyone recommend?

•

Can you tell me how it was if you can remember?

2. Did you continue taking private tutoring since then?
•If so…

•Please tell me more about your experience in taking private tutoring, if you don’t
mind.

•

When did you start to take more private tutoring [more subjects]?

•

Why did you decide to invest in many private tutoring subjects at that time? Or
How was your situation that you decided so?

3. How much do you pay for private tutoring?
•

Why some tutoring classes charge more than other?

•Is this payment burdening your family’s finance? why/why not?

•Did your parent(s) use to complain about the payment of your private tutoring?

4. Who are you taking private tutoring with? Of what subject(s)? Why are you taking
that/those subject(s)?
•In case you are NOT taking private tutoring with your subject schoolteacher, …
234

o Do you still get support from your own schoolteachers of same subject?
Does s/he know that you are taking private tutoring with anotherschoolteacher?
o Did you classmate know this too? Are there any changes in yourrelationship with them after they knew that?
•

In case you are taking it with your own schoolteacher, …
o do you think you have more opportunities to approach them for help thanothers who are not taking private tutoring with her/him?
o What do you get more from taking her/his tutoring classes that you did not
get it from your class with her/him in school?

3. Learning
5. Is private tutoring useful to you? Does it help you learn better in class?
•Can you give me some specific examples?

6. What do you exactly learn at the private tutoring classes?
•

Follow the school syllabus? If not, what does your private tutoring teachers teachyou?

•

Does s/he give you more homework/exercise to practice? How often?
o If yes, does s/he check it in the next class?

•Do you feel better when taking private tutoring classes? More confident? In whatways? Why?

7. How does s/he teach in private tutoring classes different from during school?
•

Can you tell me about her/his teaching during the school hours?

•

Which her/his teaching styles do you prefer, at school or private tutoring classes?
Why?

8. Can you tell me about your feeling during learning at school when you have learned samethings at the private tutoring classes?
•

Do you think you are still interested in class learning at school?

•

Are you interested in private tutoring classes?
o If YES, in what way? Please tell me more details
o If NO, why are you taking it?

•

Have you parent(s) ever blamed you when you are not doing well at school / when
you are not taking private tutoring?

•Has you schoolteacher ever pressured you to take private tutoring with him/her?

235

9. What subjects are you taking private tutoring?
•

This/these subject(s) are not required for the national examination of your track,
why do you need to bother yourself with it/them?

4. Examinations
10. Is result of your Grade 12 important to you?
•

Is your monthly rank important to you?
o If YES, why are school-based assessment results so important?
o If NO, why?

11. Due to the examination reform in 2014, school-based achievement is not added to your12th grade national examination.
•

Do you know this?

•Does it change the way you to choose your private tutoring class? If so, why or
why not?

5. Educational aspiration and family situation
12. What do you want to do after your Grade 12 national examination?
•

Are you going to university?

•

What major do you want to take at university?

•

Do you think your current private tutoring classes are preparing you for that plan?
o If NOT, why are you taking them now?

13. Can you tell me about your parents?
•

What are their jobs?

•

Do they often talk with you about your school?

•

Are there anyone in your family can give your academic support (homework)?
Questions for interviewing students WITHOUT private tutoring

6. Facts about private tutoring
1. I am really keen to learn more about private tutoring at upper secondary school. I knowthat you are not undertaking it this year. Have you experienced in taking private tutoringso far?
•If YES, can you tell me about that experiences? Subjects? With whom? At what
grade(s)? why did you take those subjects or that private tutoring class?

•

Why are you not taking it this year?

7. Learning236

2. How do you feel about your learning at public school recently?
•

Do you have any tension at school when you are taking private tutoring?

•Can you approach your schoolteachers for help if you cannot understand? Whatabout your classmates?

3. Can you tell me about your schoolteachers’ teaching style during school?
•

Do you think it is effective for you to prepare yourself for the coming
examination? Why/why not?

•Does your schoolteacher pressure you to take private tutoring? What about yourparent(s), have they ever asked you to take private tutoring? Why/why not?

8. Examinations
4. Is result of your Grade 12 important to you?
•

Is your monthly rank important to you?
o If YES, why are school-based assessment results so important?
o If NO, why?

5. Due to the examination reform in 2014, school-based achievement is not added to your12th grade national examination.
•

Do you know this?

•Is it one of the causes you decided not to take private tutoring? Why?

9. Educational aspiration and family situation
6. What do you want to do after your Grade-12 national examination?
•

Are you going to university?

•

What major do you want to take at university?

7. Can you tell me about your parents?
•

What is their job?

•Do they often talk with you about your school?

•

Are there anyone in your family can give your academic support (homework)?

10. Closing•

Are there anything else you would like to share with me about private tutoring?

•

Do you have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you so much for your time participating in this study’s interview process.

237

Appendix 8c: Interview protocol for parents
1. Opening
Moderator: Self-introduction, purpose of the study, and reasons that the informant was
selected. Additionally, all pints stated in the consent form for interview with the informant tore-confirm their voluntary participation.
Informant: Self-introduction including occupation, year of birth, and brief education history
as well as place of origin (province and area)
2. Private tutoring Investment* For parents having a child WITH private tutoring
1. I am curious to learn more about private tutoring in Cambodia, especially for Grade 12
students. I know that your son/daughter is now taking private tutoring of their academic
subjects. Could you tell me why you decided to invest in your child’s private tutoring for your?
•How do you feel when you afford her/his private tutoring?

•

Do you think your child is able to succeed at school without taking private
tutoring? In Grade 12 examination?

•

How do you know about private tutoring? From your child, your friends or others?

•

Do you discuss with others like your friends or neighbors before decided to invest
in private tutoring for your child? If so, what did they say?

•What do you think about the learning quality at school? Can you give me someexamples?

•Do you think your child can learn by herself/himself without support from private
tutors? If so, why? / If not, why not? Can you give me an example?

•

Are you very busy with work? What is your job or work?

•

Do you think private tutoring is helpful for your child? If so, why? If not or partial,
why do you invest in it?

•

If you do not mind, can you tell me how much do you spend for your child’s
private tutoring in average per month?

•

Is this payment burdensome to your family’s living?
* For parents having a child WITHOUT private tutoring

1. I am curious to learn more about private tutoring in Cambodia, especially for Grade 12
students. I know that your son/daughter is NOT taking private tutoring of their academic
subjects this year. Has s/he ever taken private tutoring so far?
238

•

If YES, do you remember when, what subjects, with whom did s/he take? Why
did you decided to invest in her/his private tutoring that time?

2. Could you tell me why you do not decide to invest on private tutoring for your child?
•

Do you think your child is able to succeed at school without taking private
tutoring? In Grade 12 examination?

•

What do you think about the learning quality at school? Can you give me someexamples?

•Do you think your child can learn by herself/himself without support from private
tutors? If so, why? / If not, why not?

•Do you have your own business? Do you need any support from your child? Like
what?
* For BOTH patents

3. How much do you get engaged in your child’s learning? Like what?
3. Educational aspiration for children
4. What do you want your child to be in the future?
•

Are you going send them to university? If so, what major do you want s/he to
take?

•

Do you know what learning track (science, social science) is your child following
at school?

•

Do you know why did s/he follow that track? Did you talk with her/him whenselecting that track?

4. Private tutoring experience
5. Have you experienced in taking private tutoring when you were a student?
•

Did you (or your spouse) take private tutoring when s/he was a student?

•

When did you take? On what subject? Who did you take private tutoring with?

•

If you still remember, why did you take private tutoring at that time?

•

Were you asked/pressure to take by your schoolteachers?

•

Do you remember there are any differences between teaching and learning inschool and private tutoring at that time?

* Closing•

Do you have anything else about private tutoring that you want to share more withme?
Thank you so much for your participation!

239

Appendix 8d: Interview protocol for (vice)school principals
Ø Opening• Moderator: Self-introduction, purpose of the study, and reasons that the informant was
selected. Additionally, all points stated in the consent form for interview with the informant
to re-confirm their voluntary participation.
• Informant: Self-introduction including year of birth, year started her/his teaching profession,
majoring subject, year in current position, and brief education history.
I. About your school
1. How many classes and students are there in your school by learning track?

FemaleStudents

Total
Classes

Femalestudents

Num. ofclassesNum. ofSocial science track
Femalestudents

Num. ofclassesGradeNum. of

Science track12
2. How many teachers are there?
•

Total teaching staff (teachers): _______________ (Female: ________)

II. About supplying private tutoring
I am really interested to understand more about private tutoring in Cambodia, particular of
Grade 12 students at upper secondary school.
*As subject teacher
3. Did you supply private tutoring when you were a classroom teacher?
•

If YES, …
o What grade(s) did you teach? What type(s) of private tutoring did you teach?
o When in your career did you start teaching private tutoring?
o What sorts of students did you serve?
o How did they know you?
o How did your students know that you were going to open the private tutoringclasses? what private tutoring type and when?
o What teaching styles did you frequently use during school hours, and during
private tutoring hours?
o Why did you decide to offer private tutoring at that time?
o Who proposed for private tutoring at that time?

240

o How did you feel about that experience?
•

If NO, ….
o Have students ever asked you to offer them private tutoring class?
o Have you ever considered to accept their request?
o Do you still remember why you declined their request at that time?

4. Can you tell me the scale of private tutoring?
•

How many percent of 12th graders receive private tutoring?

•

What type of private tutoring is popular, regular private tutoring, special private
tutoring, private tutoring during school holiday, tutoring at private school, or
online private tutoring?

*As (vice)school principal
5. Do you teach? If so, what subject? How many classes?
6. Do you supply private tutoring?
•If YES, …
o What type(s) of private tutoring do you teach?
o What sort of students do you supply?

7. Reasons for private tutoring•

What do think why 12th graders consider take private tutoring?

•

What extra do they get from the private tutoring they do not get from mainstream
school?

•Are there differences between poor and well-off students?

•

Are there differences between science and social science students?

8. Students and teachers’ attitude•

Can private tutoring change the way your teachers’ teaching at public school? Can
you give some examples?

•

How do your students know that their teachers will offer private tutoring classes?

•

What teaching style do your teachers frequently use during school hours, andprivate tutoring hours?

•

What do teachers feel about the instructional time for core examination subjects?
What about you?

•

Do students receive pressure from teachers?

•

Have you received any complaints from students and/or parents related to private
tutoring? Can you give me an example?

241

o If so, how did you do to respond to those complaints?
III. Private tutoring experience
9. Can you tell me about your private tutoring when you were a student?
•

Did you take private tutoring when you were a student?

•

Can you tell me when you first started to take private tutoring? On what subject?

•

What happened at the time that made you feel you need to take private tutoring?

•

Who suggested / recommended it? Can you give me some examples?

•

What type(s) of private tutoring did you take – regular or special private tutoring,private school?

•

Do you remember how it went?

Ø Closing
Do you have anything else about private tutoring that you think you can share morewith me?
Thank you so much for your time facilitating and participating in this!

242

Appendix 8e: Interview protocol for (vice)director of POE and policy level
Ø Opening• Moderator: Self-introduction, purpose of the study, and reasons that the informant was
selected. Additionally, all points stated in the consent form for interview with the informant
to re-confirm their voluntary participation.
• Informant: Self-introduction including year of birth, year started her/his teaching profession,year in current position, and brief education history.
1. Scale and nature
I am really interested to understand more about private tutoring in Cambodia, particular of
Grade 12 students at upper secondary school.
1. Could you tell me about private tutoring situation in general at upper secondary
schools in your province?
2. Do you have ever received any information/data about private tutors in each school?
•

If YES, how many percent of schoolteachers offer private tutoring?

•If NO, do you think how many percent of schoolteachers offer private tutoring?

2. Private tutoring issues
3. Have you received any complaints from parents and/or students about the ways that
schoolteachers oppressed students for private tutoring?
•If YES, how many complaints in general?
o What kind of complaints were about?

•

Can you share with how did you deal with those/that complaint in specific?

•

Have a schoolteacher/school principal ever been administratively punished due toprivate tutoring?
o If so, why has s/he been punished? Are there any rule of law regarding theprivate tutoring?

4. When we are talking about private tutoring, schoolteachers and students as well as
parents usually expressed their concern about the ‘shortage of instructional time tocomplete the syllabus’ at school, is it true?
•

If NO, why?

•

If YES, why can’t the 40-hour learning as stated in 2016 curriculum framework
be used?
243

3. Perceptions of private tutoring
5. Throughout your experience in teaching profession and in this current position,
should private tutoring be regulated?
•

If YES, in what way?

•

If NO, why?

Ø Closing
Do you have anything else about private tutoring that you think you can share morewith me?
Thank you so much for your time facilitating and participating in this!

244Appendix 9: Coefficient agreement of codings
Table 1: Coefficient agreement of schoolteacher-tutors
1st coding
Sample
No.
Total
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

TT01
TT03
TT04
TT06
TT08
TT10
TT11
TT13
TT14
TT16
TT18
TT19
TT21
TT22
TT23
TT26
TT28
TT30
TT31
TT33
TT34
TT35

17
18
9
10
11
10
9
12
11
13
10
8
9
7
7
9
5
10
7
6
5
7

0
2
1
3
2
3
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
1
2

17
16
8
7
9
7
9
12
9
10
9
8
9
7
5
8
5
7
7
6
4
5

2nd coding
Disagreement

Agreement

100
20
3
17
85
88.89 204
1680
88.89 10
2
8
80
70
7
0
7
100
81.82 10
1
9
90
70
8
1
7
87.50
100
13
4
9
69.23
100
15
3
12
80
81.82 90
910076.92 11
1
10
90.91
90
10
1
9
90
100
8
0
8
100
100
10
1
9
90
100
9
2
7
77.78
71.43 50
510088.89 11
3
8
72.73
100
6
1
5
83.33
70
8
1
7
87.50
100
8
1
7
87.50
100
8
2
6
75
80
5
1
4
80
71.43 61
583Percentage points of coefficient agreement =Table 2: Coefficient agreement of schoolteacher as non-tutors
1st coding
2nd coding
Sample
No.
Total
Total
Disagreement Agreement %Disagreement Agreement
code
codes
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

NT02
NT05
NT07
NT09
NT12
NT15
NT17
NT20
NT24
NT25
NT27
NT29
NT32
NT36
NT37

4
4
3
5
5
5
4
6
3
4
5
5
4
4
5

0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
4
5

%

%

100
5
1
4
80
100
4
0
4
100
100
3
0
3
100
80
4
0
4
100
80
5
1
4
80
80
4
0
4
100
100
4
0
4
100
66.67 4
0
4
100
100
3
0
3
100
100
4
0
4
100
80
4
0
4
100
100
7
2
5
71.43
75
4
1
3
75
100
5
1
4
80
100
6
1
5
83.33
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =245

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
92.50%
84.44%
84.44%
85%
85.91%
78.75%
84.62%
90%
90.91%
83.92%
90%
100%
95%
88.89%
85.71%
80.81%
91.67%
78.75%
93.75%
87.50%
80%
77.38%
86.82%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
90%
100%
100%
90%
80%
90%
100%
83.33%
100%
100%
90%
85.71%
75%90%
91.67%
91.05%

Table 3: Coefficient agreement of school principals
1st coding
SampleNo.
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SP01
SP02
SP03
SP04
SP05
SP06
SP07
SP08

4
3
4
7
5
3
7
8

2
0
1
2
0
1
2
3

2
3
3
5
5
2
5
5

2nd coding
Total
codes

POE01
POE02
POE03

4
4
4

0
1
0

4
3
4

Policy01

40

4Table 6: Coefficient agreement of tutees
1st coding
SampleNo.
Total
Disagreement Agreement
code
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

TS01
TS02
TS03
TS05
TS07
TS09
TS11
TS12
TS14
TS15
TS17
TS20

9
9
9
11
9
9
7
10
10
9
11
9

0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1

%

2nd coding
Disagreement

Agreement

%

100
5
1
4
80
75
4
1
3
75
100
4
1
4
80
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =Table 5: Coefficient agreement of staff at policy level
1st coding
SampleNo.
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
1

Agreement

50
3
1
2
66.67
100
3
0
3
100
75
5
2
3
60
71.43 7
2
5
71.43
100
5
0
5
100
66.67 31
2
66.67
71.43 50
5100
62.50 72
5
71.43
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =Table 4: Coefficient agreement of POE (vice-)Directors
1st coding
Sample
No.
Total
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
codes
1
2
3

Disagreement

9
8
8
10
8
9
7
9
8
9
10
8

2nd coding
Total
codes

Disagreement

Agreement

%

100
5
1
4
80
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =2nd coding
Total
codes

%

Disagreement

Agreement

%

100
12
3
9
75
88.89 91
888.89
88.89 102
88090.91 100
10100
88.89 11
3
8
72.73
100
9
0
9
100
100
7
0
7
100
90
9
0
9
100
80
8
0
8
100
100
11
2
9
81.82
90.91 100
10100
88.89 102880Percentage points of coefficient agreement =246

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
58.33%
100%
67.50%
71.43%
100%
67%
85.71%
66.96%
77.08%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
90%
75%
90%
85%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
90%
90%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
87.50%
88.89%
84.44%
95.45%
80.81%
100%
100%
95%
90%
90.91%
95.45%
84.44%
91.08%

Table 7: Coefficient agreement of non-tutees
1st coding
SampleNo.
Total
Disagreement Agreement
code
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

NTS04
NTS06
NTS08
NTS10
NTS13
NTS16
NTS18
NTS19
NTS21

5
5
6
5
3
5
5
4
5

1
0
2
1
0
1
2
0
1

4
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
4

2nd coding
Total
codes

%

PTS01
PTS02
PTS03
PTS05
PTS07
PTS09
PTS11
PTS12
PTS15
PTS17
PTS18

9
7
5
6
9
8
13
9
9
5
11

1
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
2

8
6
5
5
9
7
10
9
8
5
9

PNT04
PNT06
PNT08
PNT10
PNT13
PNT16
PNT19
PNT21

3
4
4
5
4
4
3
4

0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0

3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4

%

2nd coding
Total
codes

Disagreement

Agreement%

88.89 80
810085.71 7
1
6
85.71
100
5
0
5
100
83.33 7
2
5
71.43
100
11
2
9
81.82
87.50 92
777.78
76.92 11
1
10
90.91
100
9
0
9
100
88.89 9
1
8
88.89
100
5
0
5
100
81.82 101990Percentage points of coefficient agreement =Table 9: Coefficient agreement of parents of non-tutees
1st coding
Sample
No.
Total
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Agreement

80
4
0
4
100
100
5
0
5
100
66.67 5
1
4
80
80
6
2
4
66.67
100
3
0
3
100
80
4
0
4
100
60
4
1
3
75
100
4
0
4
100
80
6
2
4
66.67
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =Table 8: Coefficient agreement of parents of tutees
1st coding
SampleNo.
Total
Disagreement Agreement %
code
codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Disagreement

2nd coding
Disagreement

Agreement

%

100
3
0
3
100
75
3
0
3
100
75
4
1
3
75
80
4
0
4
100
75
5
2
3
60
100
4
0
4
100
100
3
0
3
100
100
5
1
4
80
Percentage points of coefficient agreement =247

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
90%
100%
73.33%
73.33%
100%
90%
67.50%
100%
73.33%
85.28%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
94.44%
85.71%
100%
77.38%
90.91%
82.64%
83.92%
100%
88.89%
100%
85.91%
89.98%

Average
Coefficient
Agreement
100%
87.50%
75%
90%
67.50%
100%
100%
90%
88.75%