A common worry behind this question is really a different one in disguise: is online tutoring a compromise, something you settle for when in-person isn't practical? It is a reasonable thing to wonder, and it has a genuinely evidence-based answer rather than a matter of opinion.
The Education Endowment Foundation's rapid evidence review of remote and distance learning found no inherent disadvantage to teaching delivered remotely. Across the studies reviewed, results were "equivalent or slightly higher for pupils who have been taught through distance instruction rather than traditional face to face instruction," and when online-only approaches were examined specifically, the impact was found to be "no different from traditional instruction."
That is a more useful, and more precise, answer than either "online is just as good" or "nothing beats in-person," because it points to the real conclusion: delivery format, on its own, is not what determines whether tutoring works.
If the screen itself is not the deciding factor, what is? The EEF's review is direct about this: "ensuring the elements of effective teaching are present, for example clear explanations, scaffolding and feedback, is more important than how or when they are provided." The review also found no meaningful difference between live, real-time teaching and pre-recorded content, reinforcing that the substance of the teaching matters more than its format.
In practice, this reframes the question a parent should actually be asking. Instead of "should we do online or in-person," a more useful question is "does this tutor explain clearly, structure the work with appropriate scaffolding, and give specific, actionable feedback," because that is the variable the evidence says actually predicts progress, in either format.
One genuine nuance is worth being honest about rather than glossing over. The same EEF review found that student-to-student interaction had one of the largest impacts on outcomes across the studies examined, with collaborative work and peer feedback consistently producing positive results. This is naturally easier to build into a small, in-person group class than into a one-to-one online session, simply because the other pupils are physically in the room.
This is one area where format genuinely can tip the balance, not because online teaching is inherently weaker, but because a well-run small in-person group gets a genuine, evidence-backed benefit, peer interaction, built in by default. It is a reason to weigh group size and format together rather than treating "online versus in-person" as the only variable that matters. For more on how group size itself affects outcomes, see our evidence-based look at one-to-one versus small-group tuition.
The same evidence review flags two further points genuinely worth considering, rather than generic pros and cons. First, reliable access to technology is a real barrier for some families, and the review specifically notes this disproportionately affects disadvantaged pupils, an equity issue worth being honest about rather than assuming every family has equally frictionless access. Second, remote learners are working more independently by nature, and the evidence found that prompting pupils to actively reflect on their own work mattered more in remote settings than in-person ones, since there is no teacher physically beside them to notice when they have drifted off task.
Neither of these points means online tutoring is worse. They mean a good online tutoring provider needs to actively account for both, with reliable technology and built-in independent-work prompts, rather than simply running an in-person lesson plan unchanged through a video call.
Given the evidence, the honest recommendation is to judge a tutor or tutoring provider on teaching quality first, whichever format you are considering, and then weigh format specifically around your child's need for peer interaction and your family's logistics. If a structured small group with built-in peer interaction fits your situation, our in-centre KS2 Maths tuition runs small classes of around five to six pupils at our East London branches. If travel, timing, or access to a specific subject specialist makes that impractical, our online tutoring is built around the same structured, curriculum-linked teaching the evidence points to, not a lesser substitute for it.
Is online tutoring actually as effective as in-person tutoring?
According to the Education Endowment Foundation's review of the evidence, yes. Studies comparing distance and face-to-face instruction found results were equivalent or slightly higher for distance learning, and no different from traditional instruction when looking at online-only approaches specifically.
What actually determines whether tutoring works, if not the format?
The evidence points to teaching quality, clear explanations, appropriately scaffolded tasks, and specific feedback, as the deciding factor, present or absent in either an online or in-person setting. Format on its own does not predict effectiveness.
Is there any situation where in-person tutoring has a genuine edge?
Peer interaction showed one of the largest effects on outcomes in the evidence reviewed, and it is naturally easier to build into a small in-person group than a one-to-one online session, so a well-run in-person group class does carry a real, evidence-backed advantage in that specific respect.
What should I actually look for when choosing between online and in-person tutoring?
Prioritise evidence of clear teaching, structured tasks, and genuine feedback in either format, then weigh group size, peer interaction, technology reliability, and your family's logistics as the secondary factors that the evidence shows genuinely matter.
Sources:
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
Updated 18-September-2026
