Tutoring can help GCSE resit learners – but only if they turn up

At EEF, we generate evidence about what works to improve outcomes for learners, particularly those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. We also help the education sector put that evidence into practice.

We’re always searching for programmes and approaches that will help leaders and teachers make the most of their limited time and budgets. So we’re actively looking for what will help learners resitting their GCSE English and maths exams achieve a grade 4.

One approach with a strong evidence base in other phases is tutoring. Overall, research consistently shows that tutoring can be an effective method for improving attainment. We wanted to understand tutoring’s impact in a 16-19 context, and how tutoring programmes can be most effective.

To do this, we’ve funded evaluations of tutoring programmes for GCSE resit students.

What we’re finding points to a central implementation challenge for colleges: despite some suggestions of positive impact for pupils who did engage, poor attendance and low learner engagement is limiting the impact of tutoring programmes. In other words, while tutoring has the potential to improve outcomes, initial evidence shows securing consistent participation can be difficult.

This suggests that for colleges investing in tutoring, the starting point is not the design of the tutoring itself, but a clear, deliberate strategy to support attendance and engagement.

Our study

This week, we’ve published findings from a pilot of a tutoring programme for resit learners led by Tutor Trust: a charity with a track-record of delivering high-quality tutoring to socio-economically disadvantaged children and young people with a positive impact on their attainment.

Tutors were typically local university students or qualified teachers. The programme included training for tutors on coaching strategies that focus on relationships, confidence and motivation building.  The pilot targeted learners in 20 settings in disadvantaged communities.

The findings show a mixed picture. Just over a quarter (26 per cent) of the 117 learners for whom GCSE grades were received achieved a grade 4 or higher, which is higher than the national average pass rate for GCSE resits. However, retention proved challenging: 31 per cent of learners withdrew before tutoring began, and only 24 per cent completed the minimum 12 hours of tutoring.

Key barriers included limited learner motivation and timetable constraints. This is consistent with challenges faced retaining learners for other 16-19 tutoring, such as that had been provided via the implementation of the 16-19 tuition fund.

Implementation and student engagement was most effective when there was a proactive and engaged partnership lead in the setting, who monitored student attendance.

Creating an attendance strategy

These findings do not suggest that tutoring is ineffective for resit learners. Rather, they underline a more fundamental point: tutoring only works if learners actually attend and engage with it consistently.

For colleges considering investment in tutoring, the key question is therefore how to create the conditions that make sustained participation more likely.

Based on the wider evidence, there are some practical considerations for colleges thinking about how to support attendance at tutoring sessions:

• Develop clear communication about why tutoring is taking place. Learners may perceive tutoring as an ‘optional extra’ and not core to their qualification. Explaining to learners why these sessions matter, how they will directly contribute to meeting the learner’s goals and the costs of missing opportunities for study can help them understand why attendance is important.
• Where possible, build tutoring into existing structures and routines. We heard that for many learners, tutoring session were more likely to be missed when they stood apart from other learning. For example, taking place on a day where someone wouldn’t otherwise be in college or in an unusual location that the learner may not know how to reach. Making it easier to attend – bringing it closer to the ‘default normal’ – should increase engagement.
• Consider incentives. Depending on your context, positive incentives may be appropriate to create a ‘pull factor’ to sessions. For example, earning ‘points’ towards a reward that demonstrates the incremental build-up of benefit.
• Consider other practical barriers to attendance. It would be easy to assume that lack of attendance is due to lack of motivation. But it’s important to interrogate that assumption and explore what other factors may be at play. Are there caring responsibilities, work commitments, lack of funds for transport, medical limitations, or home circumstances playing a role? Of course, no setting can solve all of a leaner’s problems. But being aware of them may help small adjustments to be made to maximise tutoring impact.

Being evidence-led is a crucial practice for improving attainment and reducing disadvantage. That means following the evidence where it takes you. That may to a new programme, but it may be towards removing the barrier that’s preventing further progress. Improving engagement with tutoring can unlock its potential.