This study uses a randomized controlled trial designed to examine a university-led high-impact tutoring program at seven high schools. The treatment group (n = 525) participated in high-impact tutoring (i.e., groups of 2:1 or 3:1) while the control group (n = 438) attended a remedial mathematics course. The treatment group showed a difference of nearly a half-year of learning (0.13 SD) compared with the control group. We also found no evidence that 2:1 student–tutor groups were more effective than 3:1 groups. Although the university-led program produced strong effects, it was delivered at a high cost. Future work is needed to investigate strategies for reducing the cost of high-impact tutoring while maintaining effectiveness.
Hamlin et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: