Evidence for Learning: One to one tuition

One to one tuition refers to students being individually assisted in their learning by a tutor. The tutor may be a teacher, teaching aide or another individual with more developed knowledge and expertise. This approach is used both as a remedial intervention strategy (to assist students who are falling behind) and as an accelerated intervention strategy (to further improve the learning outcomes of average or advanced students). The principle advantage of one to one tutoring is that it allows interventions to be tailored to the specific needs of each child. Its benefits may also extend beyond educational improvements, with students often creating a strong bond with their tutor, gaining confidence, emotional support and access to ​‘cultural capital’ (Dumenden, 2011).

While there is a large body of research assessing interventions that use a one to one approach, very few studies consider if the one-to-one aspect is integral to the intervention’s success. Waldie, Austin, Hattie and Fairbrass (2014) found a one to one intervention significantly improved the literacy skills of students with dyslexia. Even though they argued that the one to one aspect was integral to the intervention’s success, this assertion was not tested. Relatedly, Thorton, Quinane, Galluzzo and Taylor (2010) found a significant improvement in students’ numeracy skills following a one to one mathematics intervention. While they largely attributed the intervention’s success to individualised instruction, this claim was not assessed. Furthermore, they acknowledged that most of the participating schools would not be able to sustain the program, due to the high costs of employing teachers to work individually with students. Kohnen and Nickels (2010) discussed best practice for educators assisting students with spelling and concluded that targeted and tailored interventions in a one to one context were the most effective.

Furthermore, Scull and Bianco (2008) argued that teacher-student interactions were integral to reading recovery, a literacy intervention where students work one on one with a tutor. They asserted that the intervention’s success largely depends on the teacher’s capacity to engage students and adapt programs to their specific and changing needs.

The biggest barrier to implementing one to one interventions is the high cost involved in paying tutors. Across two papers, Dawkins, Ritz and Louden (2009a, 2009b) examined the efficacy and sustainability of a one to one tutoring program that used pre-service teachers to tutor Year 1 students who were struggling with reading. The program was effective in improving students’ literacy skills and was affordable because it utilised volunteer pre-service teachers.

In his study of private tutoring in Perth, Davis (2013) found that both tutors and parents believed private tuition was a necessary response to the failures of mainstream education. Furthermore, they felt that one to one tuition was more flexible and personable, and led to better learning outcomes. Children reportedly enjoyed the tutorials and expressed satisfaction in mastering new skills. Like Watson (2008), however, the study highlighted that private tutoring is mainly accessed by the wealthy.

Not all researchers agree that one to one tuition is necessary, with a number of them advocating the use of small groups instead. Serry and Oberklaid (2015) argued that small groups are just as effective, and in some instances more effective, than one to one interventions. Furthermore, running interventions in small groups reduces cost whilst increasing access. Relatedly, Scull (2016) examined three literacy programs aimed at improving the literacy outcomes of Indigenous students and did not consider the one to one element to be a significant factor in determining program success. Furthermore, high-cost, government-sponsored interventions involving private tutoring of low SES students that test poorly in literacy and numeracy have not been adequately shown to be effective in improving learning outcomes (Watson, 2008).

Forsey (2013) studied if tutoring in the final years of secondary school improved opportunities for tertiary education and found that while participants enjoyed tutoring, most of them did not believe it had improved their final grades. However, many of them felt their tutor had been able to provide them with ​‘emotional support’ and motivation.