Informal tutoring trumps formal mechanisms?

One of the interesting asides I heard at the CIC conference last week was that tutoring efforts in general are not really more effective than not having tutoring sessions available, at least at residential institutions like ours. I’d seen other studies to that effect, so that point wasn’t the surprise. The reason the presenters offered for the seemingly strange result was the surprise. When the researchers followed up in focus groups, the students at residential institutions who didn’t use tutoring services quickly explained that they get informal, “free” tutoring in the evenings from someone down the hall, so why bother seeking out the “official” tutors through the regular institutional channels. Take away the formal tutoring, and the use of these informal mechanisms just increased, but add more formal mechanisms, and you didn’t get much additional bang for that buck since most of the “real” tutoring continued to take place in these informal contexts.

Those doing the investigating took that information and responded in two ways. First, they focused their official tutoring mechanisms on commuter students, those at off-campus sites, and those who in general were not part of the residential community and didn’t, therefore, has as much access to these informal networks. Second, they developed a system of “trained” students in all of the residence halls who could help with math and writing skills in particular. There would be, for example, a “trained” math student on each floor of each residence hall who would have a special sign on his or her door (a star, in this case) to denote someone who could help with these kinds of informal, late-night tutoring. These two changes significantly increased the effectiveness of their tutoring and remedial services without adding much cost. Something to think about.