Research Work in progress
We read the studies so our tutoring can follow them. This page is our running summary: what the evidence shows, where it's weaker than people claim, and what we do differently because of it. It's unfinished on purpose, and we'll keep adding to it.
01 · Does tutoring work?
A review of 96 randomized evaluations of tutoring programs, from preschool to Grade 12, found an average effect of about 0.37 standard deviations on learning outcomes. In education research that is a large effect.
What we do with it: we take tutoring seriously as a way to change a student's year, not just get through a homework set.
Nickow, Oreopoulos & Quan (2020), NBER Working Paper 27476 · paper · J-PAL summary
02 · Who does the tutoring
In the same review, programs run by teachers averaged 0.50 SD and by paraprofessionals 0.40 SD, compared with about 0.21 SD for volunteer tutors and 0.23 SD for parents. Every group helped. The ones with training and accountability helped most.
What we do with it: every tutor teaches us a live mock lesson before they're hired, and many of ours are certified teachers or teacher candidates.
Nickow, Oreopoulos & Quan (2020), via the J-PAL evidence review
03 · How often, and how it connects to class
Three sessions a week outperformed one or two in the J-PAL review. The UK's Education Endowment Foundation puts high-quality one-to-one tuition at about five months of extra progress, and small groups at about four, when tutoring is targeted using a diagnostic and lines up with what the student is learning in class.
What we do with it: we match to the exact course, start with a diagnostic, and send a note home after every session so the work stays connected to school.
J-PAL (2020) · Education Endowment Foundation, Making a Difference with Effective Tutoring (2022)
04 · Is high school too late?
In two large randomized trials in Chicago, Grade 9 and 10 students got daily math tutoring at a ratio of two students per tutor. Math scores rose by 0.16 SD in the first trial and 0.37 SD in the replication, and grades improved in math and in other courses too.
What we do with it: most of our students are in high school, and we plan as if real gains are possible for them, because the evidence says they are.
Guryan, Ludwig et al. (2023), "Not Too Late," American Economic Review · study summary
05 · How students study
A major review of ten common study techniques rated practice testing and spacing study out over time as the most useful. Highlighting and rereading, the two most popular, came out near the bottom.
What we do with it: sessions are built around the student doing problems from memory, not watching the tutor do them, and we come back to old topics instead of moving on for good.
Dunlosky et al. (2013), Psychological Science in the Public Interest · summary
06 · Where the hype outruns the evidence
You'll often hear that one-on-one tutoring lifts students by two standard deviations, from Benjamin Bloom's 1984 paper. A later review of the research found human tutoring closer to 0.79 SD. That's still a lot, just not miraculous.
What we do with it: we don't promise specific grade jumps. We tell you what we're working on and show you the progress as it happens.
Bloom (1984) · VanLehn (2011), Educational Psychologist · discussion
Topics we're working through next. If you know a good study on any of these, send it our way.
We summarise studies in plain language and link to the source for each one. If we've got something wrong, tell us at hello@xtutoring.ca and we'll fix it.
Start here
A conversation, not a pitch. We'll ask what's going on and tell you honestly whether we can help. If we can't, we'll try to point you to someone who can.
Free · No obligation · Opens Cal.com in a new tab