Chang, A., Mauer, E., Wanzek, J., Kim, S., Scammacca, N., & Swanson, E. (2025). Educational Psychology Review
Meta-Analysis
Chang, A., Mauer, E., Wanzek, J., Kim, S., Scammacca, N., & Swanson, E. (2025). Educational Psychology Review, 37(19), 1–20.
Meta-Analysis Student Research Award, CEC Division for Research Robert Gaylord-Ross Award, Vanderbilt UniversityCross-age tutoring pairs an older tutor with a younger student. This meta-analysis examined whether this approach improves academic outcomes and whether it benefits not only the younger students receiving tutoring, but also the older students who provide tutoring.
Many schools need effective ways to provide students with additional academic support, but one-on-one tutoring by trained professionals can be costly. Cross-age tutoring offers a practical alternative by using older students, college students, or adult volunteers to support younger students in school-based settings.
This study updated prior research by synthesizing 32 studies of cross-age tutoring and examining its effects on academic outcomes for both tutors and tutees. The review included studies focused primarily on reading, with some studies also examining mathematics outcomes.
Cross-age tutoring is more than simply having one student help another. When implemented well, it can create a structured learning relationship in which younger students receive more practice and feedback, while older tutors strengthen their own understanding by explaining, modeling, and supporting academic skills.
The approach is especially promising for schools because it may be scalable, flexible, and feasible in settings where instructional resources are limited.
The meta-analysis synthesized evidence from 32 studies of cross-age tutoring.
Cross-age tutoring had a small to moderate positive effect on academic outcomes overall.
Younger students receiving tutoring showed positive academic gains.
Older tutors also benefited academically from participating in tutoring.
Across the included studies, cross-age tutoring produced positive academic effects for both groups. The results suggest that younger students benefit from receiving additional academic support, while older tutors may benefit from teaching, explaining, and organizing what they know.
The study also examined whether effects differed by tutor type, number of sessions, tutee risk status, and subject area. These factors did not significantly moderate the effects, suggesting that cross-age tutoring may be broadly useful across different settings and populations.
The findings support cross-age tutoring as a practical and potentially scalable model for improving academic outcomes. Schools may be able to use older students as tutors to expand instructional support while also giving tutors meaningful opportunities to strengthen their own learning.
This does not mean that tutoring works automatically. Effective programs still require structure, training, materials, and ongoing support. But the results suggest that cross-age tutoring can be a valuable option for schools seeking flexible approaches to academic intervention.
Cross-age tutoring can support both younger students and older tutors. When structured and supported, it offers a promising way to expand academic support in schools while creating learning opportunities for both members of the tutoring pair.