Tutoring has played a significant role in pandemic-related learning recovery, supporting student learning and engagement. A recent randomized controlled trial estimated that one-on-one virtual early literacy tutoring was nearly twice as effective as two-on-one tutoring for improving student learning (Robinson et al., 2024). To better understand this gap, we analyze transcripts from 16,629 tutoring sessions in this RCT—which included over 3.7 million tutor utterances—using natural language processing and machine learning techniques. We explore how tutors allocate attention across content instruction, relationship building, and classroom management between one-on-one and two-on-one formats. While tutors dedicate similar time to content instruction and relationship building across both formats, students receiving one-on-one tutoring receive more attention and personalized support. To improve the effectiveness of two-on-one tutoring, it may be beneficial to equip tutors with strategies that engage multiple students simultaneously, thereby reducing downtime and minimizing the potential for disengagement.
The Power of Personalized Attention: Comparing Pedagogical Approaches in Small Group and One-on-One Early Literacy Tutoring
Media Mentions
A new study by Stanford researchers Hsiaolin Hsieh, David Gormley, Carly D. Robinson, and Susanna Loeb suggests why one-on-one tutoring has been found to produce double the gains in student learning than two-on-one tutoring.
Analyzing 16,629 transcripts from 2022-23 school year tutoring sessions from an earlier study that established the greater gains under one-on-one tutoring, the researchers examined how tutors allocated their time and attention across both one-on-one and two-on-one formats. The tutoring sessions focused on early literacy and served kindergarten through second grade students, with 510 students receiving one-on-one tutoring and 570 students receiving two-on-one tutoring. All students met with their tutor online for 20 minutes during the school day, four times per week.
The researchers found that while tutors in both formats dedicated similar amounts of time to instruction and relationship building, students in two-on-one sessions received less individualized attention. Tutors alternated between addressing both students together and focusing on one at a time, reducing targeted support, which the researchers note can increase student disengagement and limit learning gains. Tutors in two-on-one settings also spent 63 percent more time managing behavior and transitions, further increasing the likelihood of student disengagement.
By contrast, tutors in one-on-one sessions were more likely to use motivational praise, make personal connections, and engage playfully, strategies that can build stronger relationships and sustain student engagement. Despite these differences, the study finds that tutors in both formats expressed similar levels of care and affection toward their students.
Given the financial constraints many schools face, the researchers note that two-on-one tutoring is likely to become more common as a more affordable alternative to one-on-one tutoring. They emphasize strengthening this model by equipping tutors with strategies to actively engage both students simultaneously, reducing downtime and the risk of disengagement, and ultimately boosting learning gains.
Three times a week, the young students struggling the most with reading at each of Milwaukee College Prep’s four campuses go to a dedicated classroom, don their headphones, and log into a virtual tutoring session.
For the next 30 minutes, each student gets one-on-one attention from a certified teacher who might ask them about their dog or their baby sister before diving into the lesson.
Virtual tutoring — in this case through a provider called Open Literacy — is the only way Milwaukee College Prep could provide so much tutoring for so many children and from such experienced educators, said Erica Badger, director of curriculum and instruction for the 2,000-student charter network.
“We have a hundred kids on at once,” she said. “Being able to have that many adults come into the school building? I can’t even imagine.”
For these reasons and others, virtual tutoring has remained part of the toolbox of American schools long after students returned to in-person classes. It costs less than in-person tutoring, scheduling is more flexible, and providers aren’t limited to hiring in the surrounding community.
But it doesn’t always work smoothly.
Two studies from Stanford University’s National Student Support Accelerator released Wednesday used natural language processing technologies to review transcripts from tens of thousands of hours of virtual tutoring sessions. Their goal: to better understand exactly what happens between tutors and students in these sessions.
One study examines the impact of disruptions as revealed through tutor comments, such as “You can’t see me? I’m not sure why you can’t see me” or “Sorry. Did you say something? It was hard to hear.”
Researchers found that 19% of available time was lost to disruptions, whether from technological issues, distracted students, or background noise. Time lost to disruptions was even greater when tutors were working with more than one student, especially if one of the students entered the session late.
...