Programs to provide small group tutoring sessions for struggling students are not improving learning outcomes despite significant spending, according to new research.
The study, titled: ‘In Learning Lessons: The future of small-group tutoring’ by the Centre for Independent Studies, says mass tutoring programs like those in NSW and Victoria need “a complete overhaul” to make an impact on education outcomes.
Trisha Jha, a Research Fellow in the CIS’ Education program, has been working on projects relating to the science of learning, improvement of initial teacher education and overall school quality.
When asked about the biggest pitfalls that undermine the effectiveness of existing small-group tutoring programs in schools, Jha said rapid implementation of small-group tutoring programs led to inconsistent quality, disadvantaging students without evidence-based instruction.
“Implementation involves critical decisions such as how students should be identified through screening and assessment, what program [if any] they receive in intervention, and what instructional practices are used,” Jha told The Educator.
“Schools that already had the necessary knowledge of evidence-based practices were able to generate growth for students, but that was not the case for all schools.”
Consequently, says Jha, students were guaranteed to miss out on something to receive tutoring, but were not guaranteed to receive the kind of instruction to help close their learning gaps.
Jha said evidence shows small-group tutoring is effective only when there are systematic approaches to identifying students in need of assistance, selection of appropriate intervention, and monitoring of student progress.
“Systematic approaches are difficult to implement at scale in the real world. Successful examples tend to come from literature, or individual schools,” she said.
“In Australia, the language of multi-tiered systems of support is relatively new to the mainstream conversation around education, and very little research has been done on these approaches in Australian schools.”
Jha noted that The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) has profiled a handful of secondary schools delivering parts of an MTSS program, and Docklands Primary in inner-city Melbourne has had success with systematic approaches.
The CIS paper recommends governments invest in cost-effective policies to lift overall teaching quality.
The paper notes that while some progress has been made on structured approaches to teaching reading, evidence-based, whole-school approaches to explicit instruction are needed across curriculum areas.
Jha said policymakers are uniquely placed to conduct a review of curriculum – to provide depth and detail about what needs to be taught and in what order – to inform whole-school plans for teaching.
“Also, translating the material from the Australian Curriculum and its variants into classroom-ready material can reduce teacher workload and help shift practice, especially accompanied by professional learning,” she said.
“Policymakers can also provide better advice about screening and assessment to help schools track student progress and refine learning programs for all students.”