Improving Access to, Quality, and the Effectiveness of Digital Tutoring in K–12 Education

There is considerable variation in how providers of digital education describe what they do, their services, how students access services, and what is delivered, complicating efforts to accurately assess its impact. We examine program characteristics of digital tutoring providers using rich, longitudinal observational and interview data and then analyze student attendance patterns and effects of digital tutoring on low-income students’ reading and mathematics achievement. We find significant associations between formats, curriculum drivers, tutor locations, and other characteristics of digital providers and their effectiveness in increasing student achievement, as well as differential access by student characteristics, that warrant further investigation as digital providers’ roles in K–12 instruction continue to expand.

[1]  B. Means,et al.  The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2013, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[2]  D. Vandell,et al.  Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs , 2007 .

[3]  Barbara Means,et al.  Learning Online: What Research Tells Us About Whether, When and How , 2014 .

[4]  Y. Lou,et al.  Within-Class Grouping: A Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[5]  Matthew Springer,et al.  Supplemental Educational Services and Student Test Score Gains: Evidence from a Large, Urban School District , 2014 .

[6]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  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 , 2000 .

[7]  Gary Miron,et al.  Understanding and Improving Full-Time Virtual Schools , 2012 .

[8]  Yong Zhao,et al.  What Makes the Difference? A Practical Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Education , 2005, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[9]  Barbara Queen,et al.  Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2009-10. First Look. NCES 2012-008. , 2011 .

[10]  Carolyn J. Heinrich,et al.  The Efficacy of Private Sector Providers in Improving Public Educational Outcomes , 2013 .

[11]  Drowning Digitally? How Disequilibrium Shapes Practice in a Blended Learning Charter School , 2016, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[12]  R. Zimmer.  State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I -- Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement , 2007 .

[13]  Sarah C. Goslee,et al.  Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age , 1998 .

[14]  Lori D. Patton,et al.  Dear Mr. Kozol…. Four African American Women Scholars and the Re-Authoring of Savage Inequalities , 2013, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[15]  John T. E. Richardson,et al.  Face‐to‐face versus online tutoring support in distance education , 2007 .

[16]  Noel Enyedy,et al.  New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning , 2014 .

[17]  J. Kemple,et al.  Assessing the Early Impact of School of One:: Evidence from Three School-Wide Pilots , 2012 .

[18]  Carolyn J. Heinrich,et al.  Supplemental Education Services Under No Child Left Behind , 2009 .

[19]  C. Wimer,et al.  After School Programs in the 21st Century: Their Potential and What It Takes to Achieve It. Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation. Number 10. , 2008 .

[20]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Michael F. Hock,et al.  The Effects of an After-School Tutoring Program on the Academic Performance of At-Risk Students and Students with LD , 2001 .

[22]  Austin Lasseter,et al.  Understanding the Implications of Online Learning for Educational Productivity , 2012 .

[23]  Michael K. Barbour,et al.  Research and Practice in K-12 Online Learning: A Review of Open Access Literature , 2009 .

[24]  Kasia Muldner,et al.  Gender Differences in the Use and Benefit of Advanced Learning Technologies for Mathematics. , 2013 .

[25]  L. Hamilton,et al.  After-school tutoring in the context of no Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools , 2010 .

[26]  Joseph A. Durlak,et al.  The Impact of After-School Programs that Promote Personal and Social Skills. , 2007 .

[27]  Carolyn J. Heinrich,et al.  Instruction Matters: Lessons from a Mixed-Method Evaluation of Out-Of-School Time Tutoring under No Child Left Behind , 2014, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[28]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  Structuring Out-of-School Time to Improve Academic Achievement. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2009-012. , 2009 .

[29]  Patricia A. Lauer,et al.  Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk Students , 2006 .

[30]  Thomas D. Snyder,et al.  Digest of Education Statistics , 1994 .

[31]  Patricia Burch,et al.  Equal Scrutiny: Privatization and Accountability in Digital Education , 2014 .

[32]  Barbara Means,et al.  Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies , 2009 .

[33]  Joseph A Durlak,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of After-School Programs That Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents , 2010, American journal of community psychology.

[34]  Thurston Domina,et al.  The School Counselor Caseload and the High School-to-College Pipeline , 2014, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[35]  Carolyn J. Heinrich,et al.  Improving the Implementation and Effectiveness of Out‐of‐School‐Time Tutoring , 2014 .