In-person tutoring has been shown to improve academic achievement. Fewer studies have examined the impact of virtual tutoring and have focused on older students. We present findings from the first randomized controlled trial of virtual tutoring for young children. Students in grades K–2 were assigned to 1:1 tutoring, 2:1 tutoring, or a control group. Virtual tutoring increased early literacy skills by 0.05-SD for all students and 0.08-SD for a sample excluding English learners and students with disabilities (i.e., students not eligible for additional support services). One-on-one tutoring tended to produce larger gains, especially for students initially scoring well below benchmark (0.15-SD). Effects are smaller than typically seen from in-person early literacy tutoring programs but still positive and statistically significant.
AmendumS. J.Vernon-FeagansL.GinsbergM. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention: The targeted reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1086/660684
2.
AtheyS.ImbensG. W. (2017). The econometrics of randomized experiments. In Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 1, pp. 73–140). North-Holland.
3.
CarlanaM.FerraraE. L. (2021). Apart but connected: Online tutoring and student outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. EdWorkingPapers.com. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-350
CortesK. E.KortecampK.LoebS.RobinsonC. D. (2025). A scalable approach to high-impact tutoring for young readers. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102021
7.
DeaconG.ChojnackiG. (2023). Impacts of UPchieve on-demand tutoring on students’ math knowledge and perceptions. Middle Years Math Grantee Report Series. Mathematica. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED628646
8.
DietrichsonJ.BøgM.FilgesT.Klint JørgensenA.-M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 243–282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036
9.
DietrichsonJ.FilgesT.SeerupJ. K.KlokkerR. H.ViinholtB. C. A.BøgM.EibergM. (2021). Targeted school-based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in Grades K-6: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1152
10.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.Tejero HughesM.Watson MoodyS. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605
11.
GerstenR.HaymondK.Newman-GoncharR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591
12.
GortazarL.HupkauC.RoldanA. (2023). Online tutoring works: Experimental evidence from a program with vulnerable children. EdWorkingPapers.com. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai23-743
Harel-GadassiA. (2022). For whom is distance learning suitable? The relationship between distance learning, executive functions, and academic achievements. Universal Journal of Education Research, 10(2), 129–136.
JacobR.ArmstrongC.BowdenA. B.PanY. (2016). Leveraging volunteers: An experimental evaluation of a tutoring program for struggling readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(sup1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1138560
17.
JamshidifarsaniH.GarbayaS.LimT.BlazevicP.RitchieJ. M. (2019). Technology-based reading intervention programs for elementary grades: An analytical review. Computers & Education, 128, 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.003
18.
KraftM. A.FalkenG. T. (2021). A blueprint for scaling tutoring and mentoring across public schools. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211042858. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211042858
19.
KraftM. A.ListJ. A.LivingstonJ. A.SadoffS. (2022). Online tutoring by college volunteers: Experimental Evidence from a Pilot Program. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112, 614–618. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20221038
20.
MilesK. P.McFaddenK. E.ColenbranderD.EhriL. C. (2022). Maximising access to reading intervention: comparing small group and one-to-one protocols of Reading Rescue. Journal of Research in Reading, 45(3), 299–323.
NeitzelA. J.LakeC.PellegriniM.SlavinR. E. (2022). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379
27.
NickowA.OreopoulosP.QuanV. (2024). The promise of tutoring for PreK–12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231208687
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483
30.
RitterG. W.BarnettJ. H.DennyG. S.AlbinG. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325690
31.
RobinsonC. D.BishtB.LoebS. (2022). The inequity of opt-in educational resources and an intervention to increase equitable access. EdWorkingPapers.com. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai22-654
32.
RobinsonC. D.LoebS. (2021). High-impact tutoring: State of the research and priorities for future learning. National Student Support Accelerator.
33.
RoschelleJ.ChengB. H.HodkowskiN.NeislerJ.HaldarL. (2020). Evaluation of an online tutoring program in elementary mathematics. Digital Promise. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604743.pdf
34.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.DavisS.MaddenN. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002
35.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D. (2016). Evaluation of the DIBELS diagnostic system for the selection of native and proficient English speakers at risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(2), 103–118.
University of Oregon. (2023). 8th Edition of dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS®): Administration and scoring guide, 2023 edition. https://dibels.uoregon.edu
39.
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning. (2018). Understanding the research behind DIBELS® (8th ed.). (Technical Report 1801).
WangX.NeitzelA. J.MaddenN. (2023). Lightning squad: Assessing the dosage effect of computer-assisted tutoring with cooperative learning for struggling readers (EdArXiv). https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/qzfd4
42.
ZhaoA.DingP. (2024). To adjust or not to adjust? Estimating the average treatment effect in randomized experiments with missing covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119(545), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2022.2123814
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
