Impact of Tutoring

The Impact of Tutoring on Spring AIMS Performance

The pool of students consisted of 1,935 high school juniors who took the Fall 2004-2005 AIMS and failed to meet the State Standards in at least one subject area. Students were then divided into two groups based on whether the student took advantage of tutoring or not. The Fall and Spring AIMS were different tests and therefore were not directly comparable in terms of raw scores. Since the same students took the AIMS in both Fall and Spring, and both versions of the AIMS were assumed to be measuring the same traits a decision was made to equate the two tests on difficulty. The Spring AIMS was adjusted to match the mean and standard deviation of the Fall AIMS using the formula:

Where Y represents the Spring test and X represents the Fall test.

The first group of tables labeled “AIMS Raw Score Results…” compared the two groups on AIMS raw scores for Fall 2004-2005 and adjusted AIMS raw scores for Spring 2004-2005. Significant gains following tutoring were demonstrated for Reading, Writing and Mathematics. The group receiving tutoring in math scored significantly higher before receiving tutoring and continued to score significantly higher following tutoring.

The second group of tables show the correlations between AIMS raw scores (Spring and Fall) and the number of hours of tutoring received. The correlations while statistically significant were small in magnitude, possibly due to the restricted range in the number of tutoring hours received. Although a student could receive up to 45 hours of tutoring (five students and one instructor) 80% of the students receiving tutoring got five hours or less. This problem of restricted range also made it impossible to determine the optimum number of hours of tutoring.

Next Chi-Square analyses were performed looking at the number of students meeting the State Standards compared to the number of students failing to meet the standards by group. The Chi-Square values were significant for Writing and Mathematics, but not for Reading.

Finally, a set of tables presents the demographic breakouts of the two groups for Reading, writing and Mathematics.

AIMS Raw Score Results for

Fall 2004-2005 and Spring 2004-2005 By Group

AIMS Reading 2004-2005

Group	Fall 04-05			Spring 04-05
Group	Means	N	Std.Dev.	Means	N	Std.Dev.
No Tutoring	54.12	618	13.41	57.06	618	13.99
Tutoring	54.43	207	12.81	59.60	207	13.18
All Groups	54.20	825	13.25	57.70	825	13.82

Reading ANOVA Results

	SS	df	MS	SS	df	MS
	Effect	Effect	Effect	Error	Error	Error	F	p
Fall 04-05	14.3200	1	14.3200	144688.9	823	175.8066	.081453	.775410
Spring 04-05	998.2262	1	998.2262	156448.3	823	190.0951	5.251192	.022184
Gains	773.4261	1	773.4261	122699.9	823	149.0885	5.187696	.023003

AIMS Writing 2004-2005

Group	Fall 04-05			Spring 04-05
Group	Means	N	Std.Dev.	Means	N	Std.Dev.
No Tutoring	48.41	441	9.04	50.03	441	8.36
Tutoring	49.98	124	7.22	54.11	124	7.14
All Groups	48.75	565	8.69	50.93	565	8.27

Writing ANOVA Results

	SS	df	MS	SS	df	MS
	Effect	Effect	Effect	Error	Error	Error	F	p
Fall 04-05	239.096	1	239.096	42355.28	563	75.23141	3.17814	.075168
Spring 04-05	1607.131	1	1607.131	36998.27	563	65.71629	24.45559	.000001
Gains	606.455	1	606.455	29427.62	563	52.26931	11.60251	.000706

Gain = (Spring AIMS raw score) – (Fall AIMS raw score)

AIMS Raw Score Results for Fall 2004-2005

And Spring 2004-2005 By Group (continued)

AIMS Mathematics 2004-2005

Group	Fall 04-05			Spring 04-05
Group	Means	N	Std.Dev.	Means	N	Std.Dev.
No Tutoring	50.15	1128	13.00	52.86	1128	14.84
Tutoring	54.12	355	11.47	60.95	355	13.63
All Groups	51.10	1483	12.76	54.80	1483	14.96

Mathematics ANOVA Results

	SS	df	MS	SS	df	MS
	Effect	Effect	Effect	Error	Error	Error	F	p
Fall 04-05	4247.58	1	4247.58	236952.3	1481	159.9948	26.54825	.000000
Spring 04-05	17646.11	1	17646.11	313833.0	1481	211.9061	83.27323	.000000
Gains	4578.58	1	4578.58	167160.3	1481	112.8699	40.56508	.000000

Correlations Between AIMS Test Scores and Hours of Tutoring

Reading

Variable	Hours Tutoring(w)
Fall Test Scores	.20
Spring Test Scores	.25
Gains	.04

Writing

Variable	Hours Tutoring(w)
Fall Test Scores	.21
Spring Test Scores	.27
Gains	.12

Mathematics

Variable	Hours Tutoring(w)
Fall Test Scores	.19
Spring Test Scores	.27
Gains	.18

Number of Hours Tutoring by Group and Subject Area

Group	Mean Number of Hours Tutoring (min – max)
Group	Reading (.5 – 22)		Writing (.5 – 10)		Math (.5 – 30)
	Means	N	Means	N	Means	N
No Tutoring	0.00	1215	0.00	959	0.00	1867
Tutoring	3.69	230	3.32	141	5.28	387
Both Groups	.59	1445	.43	1100	.91	2254

Chi-Square Analysis of Proportion of Students Failing to Meet

State Standards in Fall 2004-2005 and Meeting State Standards

in Spring 2004-2005 by Tutoring vs. No Tutoring

AIMS Reading 2004-2005

Group	Spring 04-05		Row Totals
	Met Standard	Failed to meet Standard
A no tutoring	247 (35.0%)	458 (65%)	705
B tutoring	87 (39.2%)	135 (60.8%)	222
Both Groups	334	593	927

AIMS Writing 2004-2005

Group	Spring 04-05		Row Totals
	Met Standard	Failed to meet Standard
A no tutoring	171 (32.0%)	363 (68.0%)	534
B tutoring	66 (47.8%)	72 (52.2%)	138
Both Groups	237	435	672

Chi-Square = 11.997; df = 1; p = .0005

AIMS Mathematics 2004-2005

Group	Spring 04-05		Row Totals
	Met Standard	Failed to meet Standard
A no tutoring	587 (47.6%)	646 (52.4%)	1233
B tutoring	265 (70.7%)	110 (29.3%)	375
Both Groups	852	756	1608

Chi-Square = 61.38; df = 1; p = .0000

Demographic Breakout by Group

Reading

Gender	Group		Row Totals
Gender	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Row Totals
Male	671	116	787
Row %	*85.26%*	*14.74%*	*54.46%*
Female	544	114	658
Row %	*82.67%*	*17.33%*	*45.54%*
Both Genders	1215	230	1445
Row %	*84.1%*	*15.9%*

Lunch Group	Group		Row Totals
Lunch Group	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Row Totals
Free	55	17	72
Row %	*76.39%*	*23.61%*	*4.98%*
Reduced	423	93	516
Row %	*81.98%*	*18.02%*	*35.71%*
Pay	737	120	857
Row %	*86.00%*	*14.00%*	*59.31%*
All Lunch Groups	1215	230	1445

Ethnicity	Group		Row Totals
Ethnicity	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Row Totals
Hispanic	777	139	916
Row %	*84.83%*	*15.17%*	*63.39%*
Native American	75	9	84
Row %	*89.29%*	*10.71%*	*5.81%*
White	259	47	306
Row %	*84.64%*	*15.36%*	*21.18%*
African American	85	25	110
Row %	*77.27%*	*22.73%*	*7.61%*
Asian American	19	10	29
Row %	*65.52%*	*34.48%*	*2.01%*
All Ethnic Groups	1215	230	1445

Writing

Gender	Group		Group Totals
Gender	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Male	584	85	669
Row %	*87.29%*	*12.71%*	*60.82%*
Female	375	56	431
Row %	*87.01%*	*12.99%*	*39.18%*
Both Genders	959	141	1100
Row %	*87.18%*	*12.82%*

Lunch Group	Group		Group Totals
Lunch Group	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Free	44	13	57
Row %	*77.19%*	*22.81%*	*5.18%*
Reduced	327	53	380
Row %	*86.05%*	*13.95%*	*34.55%*
Pay	588	75	663
Row %	*88.69%*	*11.31%*	*60.27%*
All Lunch Groups	959	141	1100

Ethnicity	Group		Group Totals
Ethnicity	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Hispanic	569	85	654
Row %	*87.00%*	*13.00%*	*59.45%*
Native American	59	4	63
Row %	*93.65%*	*6.35%*	*5.73%*
White	257	34	291
Row %	*88.32%*	*11.68%*	*26.45%*
African American	61	12	73
Row %	*83.56%*	*16.44%*	*6.64%*
Asian American	13	6	19
Row %	*68.42%*	*31.58%*	*1.73%*
All Ethnic Groups	959	141	1100

Mathematics

Gender	Group		Group Totals
Gender	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Male	689	149	838
Row %	*82.22%*	*17.78%*	*48.58%*
Female	673	214	887
Row %	*75.87%*	*24.13%*	*51.42%*
Both Genders	1362	363	1725
Row %	*78.96%*	*21.04%*

Lunch Group	Group		Group Totals
Lunch Group	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Free	88	19	107
Row %	*82.24%*	*17.76%*	*6.20%*
Reduced	503	107	730
Row %	*82.46%*	*17.54%*	*42.3%*
Pay	771	237	610
Row %	*76.49%*	*23.51%*	*35.36%*
All Lunch Groups	1362	363	1725

Mathematics (continued)

Ethnicity	Group		Group Totals
Ethnicity	No Tutoring	Tutoring	Group Totals
Hispanic	824	184	1008
Row %	*81.75%*	*18.25%*	*58.43%*
Native American	68	9	77
Row %	*88.31%*	*11.69%*	*4.46%*
White	343	136	479
Row %	71.61%	28.39%	*27.77%*
African American	105	29	134
Row %	*78.36%*	*21.64%*	*7.77%*
Asian American	22	5	27
Row %	*81.48%*	*18.52%*	*1.57%*
All Ethnic Groups	1362	363	1725