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

By Batya Elbaum, S. Vaughn, M. Hughes, S. W. Moody. 2000

620 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk Students (2006, result): “This was one of the strongest findings from the meta-analysis and is supported by other research on tutoring of at-risk students during the school day (Barley et al., 2002; Elbaum et al., 2000).”
Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. (2009, background): “109 Secondly, the conclusions of this review differ from those of Elbaum et al. (2000), who reported that there were few differences between one-to-one tutoring and small-group tutorials.”
Paraeducator-Supplemented Instruction in Structural Analysis With Text Reading Practice for Second and Third Graders at Risk for Reading Problems (2006, background): “Although we have ample evidence that one-toone supplemental tutoring programs in reading are highly effective (Elbaum et al., 2000), the effectiveness and potential of paraeducators have not been directly addressed.”
Private tutoring: how prevalent and effective is it? (2004, background): “Even the impact of individual tutoring can be variable, however, as the quality of tutoring and the content of the programme also influence effectiveness (Shanahan, 1998; Elbaum et al., 2000).”