The Dosage Dilemma: Implementation Evidence on the Barriers to High-Dosage Tutoring

Abstract

Although substantial evidence supports tutoring’s efficacy, student participation rates in tutoring programs rarely reach desired levels. Our mixed-methods study examines implementation challenges across three in-school tutoring delivery models: live in person, live virtual, and artificial intelligence (AI) virtual. Drawing on student-level dosage data and qualitative evidence, we find that dosage rates across implementations were quite low. All programs faced challenges with scheduling and tutor quality. The in-person model suffered inadequate tutor/teacher communications and the difficulty of limiting tutoring to targeted students, and both virtual models faced persistent challenges with technology. Additionally, the AI-based model was hindered by the absence of meaningful adult/student relationships. We conclude that the implementation barriers we identify are addressable, putting high-dosage tutoring within reach.

Keywords

implementation instructional design/development mixed methods policy program evaluation tutoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bhatt

M. P.

Guryan

Khan

S. A.

LaForest-Tucker

Bhavya

(2024). Can technology facilitate scale? Evidence from a randomized evaluation of high dosage tutoring (Working Paper No. 32510). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bloom

B. S.

(1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.

Bush-Mecenas

Marsh

J. A.

(2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In Lochmiller

C. R.

(Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Palgrave Macmillan.

Creagh

Thompson

Mockler

Stacey

Hogan

(2025). Workload, work intensification and time poverty for teachers and school leaders: A systematic research synthesis. Educational Review, 77(2), 661–680.

Dietrichson

Bøg

Filges

Klint Jørgensen

A. M.

(2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 243–282.

Dusseault

Pillow

(2021). First look at ESSER priorities: Districts are placing their bets on what they know. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://crpe.org/first-look-at-esser-priorities-districts-are-placing-their-bets-on-what-theyknow/

Escueta

Nickow

J. A.

Oreopoulos

Quan

(2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897–996.

Fahle

E. M.

Kane

T. J.

Patterson

Reardon

S. F.

Staiger

D. O.

Stuart

E. A.

(2023). School district and community factors associated with learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.

Farmer

Robinson

Elliott

S. J.

Eyles

(2006). Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(3), 377–394.

10.

Fryer

R. G.

Jr. (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments. In Banerjee

A. V.

Duflo

(Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 2, pp. 95–322). North-Holland.

11.

Gersten

Rolfhus

Clarke

Decker

L. E.

Wilkins

Dimino

(2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 516–546.

12.

Gortazar

Hupkau

Roldan

(2023). Online tutoring works: Experimental evidence from a program with vulnerable children (EdWorkingPaper No. 23-743). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/tpxj-qs08

13.

Groom-Thomas

Leung

Loeb

Pollard

Waymack

White

(2023). Challenges and solutions: Scaling tutoring programs. IDB Publications.

14.

Guryan

Ludwig

(2023). Overcoming pandemic-induced learning loss. Aspen Institute.

15.

Heinrich

C. J.

Burch

(2011). The implementation and effectiveness of supplemental educational services: A review and recommendations for program improvement. Center for American Progress. https://sesiq2.wceruw.org/documents/CAP-AEI%20ses_paper_Heinrich&Burch.pdf

16.

Jacob

Armstrong

Bowden

A. B.

Pan

(2016). Leveraging volunteers: An experimental evaluation of a tutoring program for struggling readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(Suppl. 1), 67–92.

17.

Kraft

M. A.

Schueler

B. E.

Falken

(2024). What impacts should we expect from tutoring at scale? Exploring meta-analytic generalizability (EdWorking Paper No. 24-1031). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/zygj-m525

18.

Lauer

P. A.

Akiba

Wilkerson

S. B.

Apthorp

H. S.

Snow

Martin-Glenn

M. L.

(2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.

19.

Makori

Burch

Loeb

(2024). Scaling high-impact tutoring: School level perspectives on implementation challenges and strategies (EdWorkingPaper No. 24-923). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/h8z5-t461

20.

Manna

(2011). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ Press.

21.

Markovitz

C. E.

Hernandez

M. W.

Hedberg

E. C.

Silberglitt

(2014). Impact evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program. Corporation for National and Community Service.

22.

McCormick

Woo

Steiner

Grossman

(2023). How a pilot program targeting ninth-graders led to shifting sessions from weekends and evenings to regular school hours. MDRC.

23.

Neitzel

A. J.

Reilly

(2024). An evaluation of Ignite Reading virtual literacy tutoring in Massachusetts. Center for Research and Reform in Education, The Johns Hopkins University.

24.

Neitzel

A. J.

Storey

(2024). Air reading: A randomized evaluation of a virtual tutoring model. Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University.

25.

Nickow

Oreopoulos

Quan

(2024). The promise of tutoring for prek-12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 61(1), 74–107.

26.

Peters

S. J.

Langi

Kuhfeld

Lewis

(2023). Unequal learning loss: How the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the academic growth of learners at the tails of the achievement distribution (EdWorking Paper No. 24-1031). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/z2ek-4937

27.

Ready

D. D.

McCormick

S. G.

Shmoys

R. J.

(2026). The effects of in-school virtual tutoring on student reading development: Evidence from a short-cycle randomized controlled trial. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2026.2615787

28.

Robinson

C. D.

Kraft

M. A.

Loeb

Schueler

(2024). Design principles for accelerating student learning with high-impact tutoring. EdResearch for Action.

29.

Robinson

C. D.

Loeb

(2021). High-impact tutoring: State of the research and priorities for future learning. National Student Support Accelerator.

30.

Robinson

C. D.

Pollard

Novicoff

White

Loeb

(2025). The effects of virtual tutoring on young readers: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 47(4), 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241288845

31.

Skjott Linneberg

Korsgaard

. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270.

32.

St. Pierre

E. A.

Jackson

A. Y

. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719.

33.

Strassberger

Condliffe

(2024). How to build it and ensure they will come: Educators’ advice on high-dosage tutoring programs. MDRC.

34.

Syed

Nelson

S. C.

(2015). Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 375–387.

35.

Wang

R. E.

Ribeiro

A. T.

Robinson

C. D.

Loeb

Demszky

(2024). Tutor copilot: A human-AI approach for scaling real-time expertise. National Student Support Accelerator.

36.

White

Carey

O’Donnell

Loeb

(2021). Early lessons from implementing high-impact tutoring at scale. National Student Support Accelerator.

37.

Zimmer

Hamilton

Christina

(2010). After-school tutoring in the context of No Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh public schools. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), 18–28.