The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review
Open accessAbstract
With Covid-19 having caused significant disruption to the global education system, researchers are beginning to become concerned with the impact that this has had on student learning progress and, in particular, whether learning loss has been experienced. To evaluate this, the authors conducted a thorough analysis of recorded learning loss evidence documented between March 2020 and March 2021. This systematic review aims to consolidate available data and to document what has been reported in the literature. Given the novelty of the subject, eight studies were identified; seven of these found evidence of student learning loss among at least some of the participants while one of the seven also found instances of learning gains in a particular subgroup. The remaining study found increased learning gains in their participants. Additionally, four of the studies observed increases in inequality where certain demographics of students experienced learning losses more significant than others. It is determined that further research is needed to increase the quantity of studies produced, their geographical focus, and the numbers of students they observe.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 Not checked yet · 9 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 2 No basis given
In the paper
“Tomasik, Helbling, and Moser (2020) found learning progress of primary-school students in Switzerland during in-person learning to be more than twice as high compared to the progress made during the eight-week school closure.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser (2020) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Engzell et al. (2021) determined that losses were up to 60 percent larger among students from uneducated homes.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Engzell et al. (2021)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After this screening process, eight articles remained (Table 1).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Given the novelty of the subject, eight studies were identified”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“Maldonado and De Witte (2020) found Grade 6 students in Belgium experienced losses of 0.19 SD in math and 0.29 SD in Dutch.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maldonado & De Witte (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining study found increased learning gains in their participants.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“The remaining study observed learning gains among university students.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
In the paper
“Orlov et al. (2020) determined that economics students at four USA universities were 0.19 SD behind.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Orlov et al. (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schult, Mahler, Fauth, and Lindner (2021) find learning losses of 0.07 SD in reading comprehension, 0.09 in operations, and 0.03 in numbers for Grade 5 students in Germany.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schult, Mahler, Fauth, & Lindner (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These observed losses are occurring across a range of subjects, grade levels, and geographical regions.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schult, Mahler, Fauth, and Lindner (2021) find learning losses of 0.07 SD in reading comprehension, 0.09 in operations, and 0.03 in numbers for Grade 5 students in Germany.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schult, Mahler, Fauth, & Lindner (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schult, Mahler, Fauth, and Lindner (2021) find learning losses of 0.07 SD in reading comprehension, 0.09 in operations, and 0.03 in numbers for Grade 5 students in Germany.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schult, Mahler, Fauth, & Lindner (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gore et al. (2021) found Year 3 students studying math in low ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) schools in Australia to be two months behind the progress students made in 2019.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore et al. (2021) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maldonado and De Witte (2020) observed inequality within schools rise by 17 percent for math and 20 percent for Dutch.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maldonado & De Witte (2020)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As indicated in Table 3, we find that seven out of the eight studies identified learning loss among at least some of the students analyzed.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Seven of the eight found evidence of student learning loss among participants”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
In the paper
“Kuhfeld, Tarasawa, Johnson, Ruzek, and Lewis (2020) found that Grade 3–8 students in the USA scored 5–10 percentile points below historic levels in math.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kuhfeld, Tarasawa, Johnson, Ruzek, & Lewis (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maldonado and De Witte (2020) observed inequality within schools rise by 17 percent for math and 20 percent for Dutch.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maldonado & De Witte (2020)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At the university level, in a single university, for 458 students in STEM faculties, learning outcomes actually improved (Gonzalez et al., 2020).”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gonzalez et al. (2020) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maldonado and De Witte (2020) found Grade 6 students in Belgium experienced losses of 0.19 SD in math and 0.29 SD in Dutch.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maldonado & De Witte (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“seven of these found evidence of student learning loss among at least some of the participants while one of the seven also found instances of learning gains in a particular subgroup.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Seven of the eight found evidence of student learning loss among participants while one of these found instances of learning gains in a particular subgroup.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
In the paper
“Engzell, Frey, and Verhagen (2021) find that, overall, Grade 4–7 students in the Netherlands have encountered an average 0.08 SD learning loss in math, spelling, and reading.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only limited information that is currently available is from Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, the United States, and Australia.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Kuhfeld et al. (2020) found inconclusive and minor differences between ethnic or racial groups.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kuhfeld et al. (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gore et al. (2021) found the only losses to be among students from low-ICSEA schools”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore et al. (2021) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schult et al. (2021) found losses in math among Grade 5 students to be more severe in low achieving students.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schult et al. (2021)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gore et al. (2021) found there to be no evidence of overall learning loss in Year 3 and 4 students in math and reading with the exceptions being Year 3 students in math in low-ICSEA schools who experienced losses, while mid-ICSEA students experienced small gains.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore et al. (2021) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“while Tomasik et al. (2020) found primary students to be impacted, they found no impact on secondary students.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tomasik et al. (2020) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last, many of the studies themselves who were analyzed in this systematic review had limited numbers of participants.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gore et al. (2021) found there to be no evidence of overall learning loss in Year 3 and 4 students in math and reading with the exceptions being Year 3 students in math in low-ICSEA schools who experienced losses, while mid-ICSEA students experienced small gains.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore et al. (2021) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the eight studies, four found instances of inequality, while only one found demographics exclusively to have no impact on learning loss.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In reading comprehension, Schult et al. (2021) found more severe losses among middle- to high-achieving students.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schult et al. (2021)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learning loss is being experienced.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
- Rests on an assumption: The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
- Rests on an assumption: The included studies' measures of learning loss are comparable enough to be synthesized.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not all students are experiencing learning loss.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
- Rests on an assumption: The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some students are experiencing more learning loss than others.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
- Rests on an assumption: The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
- Rests on an assumption: The included studies' measures of learning loss are comparable enough to be synthesized.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is consistent with the literature showing that students in the early grades may be more vulnerable than secondary students because of their inability to seek learning on their own, due to the differences in developmental and cognitive abilities.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
- Rests on an assumption: The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
In the paper
“both Maldonado and De Witte (2020) as well as Kuhfeld et al. (2020) found learning losses in certain subjects but insignificant impacts in others.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maldonado & De Witte (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, four of the studies observed increases in inequality where certain demographics of students experienced learning losses more significant than others.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Of the eight studies, four found instances of inequality”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
In the paper
“Gore et al. (2021) found instances of increased inequality as well as instances of no change.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gore et al. (2021) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“both Maldonado and De Witte (2020) as well as Kuhfeld et al. (2020) found learning losses in certain subjects but insignificant impacts in others.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kuhfeld et al. (2020)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When conducting the search analysis, thousands of articles were identified; however, the majority of these pertained to hypothesized or predicted learning loss.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the literature representing the impact that Covid-19 has had on student learning progress is limited in the quantity of studies available, geographical regions analyzed, and number of participating students.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Currie and Thomas (2001) put this into perspective because they observe that a 0.20 standard deviation (SD) decrease in standardized test scores could decrease future employment probability by 0.86 percent.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Currie and Thomas (2001)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The initial search was performed using English-language articles published between March 1, 2020, and March 18, 2021.”
- Also stated in: § Methodology · plain
“To ensure a comprehensive, multidisciplinary search, the electronic databases included were ECONLIT, Google Scholar, PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Library.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Methodology · plain
In the paper
“Likewise, another year of schooling is, on average, associated with an 8–9 percent gain in future earnings (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018).”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Psacharopoulos & Patrinos (2018) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To conduct the search, the keywords “Covid-19”, “coronavirus”, “2019-ncov”, “sars-cov-2”, or “cov-19”, were used in combination with “learning loss”, “learning slide”, “education gap”, or “achievement gap”.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of its kind.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To narrow this down to studies with recorded results, article abstracts were then screened.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies that conducted student analyses and reported impacts on learning progress (either positive, negative, or insignificant) as a result of Covid-19 school disruptions were included.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Additionally, Chetty et al. (2014) observe that increasing student achievement by 0.20 SD results on average in a 2.6 percent increase in annual lifetime earnings (Maldonado & De Witte, 2020).”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chetty et al. (2014) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Factors for rejecting studies from our review included the absence of student analyses or recorded impacts on learning progress, analyses occurring before the onset of Covid-19, or hypothesized results.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This signals that although robust and empirical research on Covid-19-related student learning loss is limited, learning loss itself may not be.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
- Rests on an assumption: The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
- Rests on an assumption: The included studies' measures of learning loss are comparable enough to be synthesized.
The paper relies on this without support.
The learning losses reported in the included studies are attributable to Covid-19 school disruptions rather than other factors.
“Covid-19-related student learning loss”
The paper relies on this without support.
The findings of the included studies are valid and reliable enough to support the review's conclusions.
“the early findings of seven studies provide evidence of experienced learning losses”
The paper relies on this without support.
The included studies' measures of learning loss are comparable enough to be synthesized.
“These observed losses are occurring across a range of subjects, grade levels, and geographical regions.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, there are several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and these suggest an average learning loss attributable to COVID-19 school closures of 0.17 of a standard deviation—that is, at least one-third of a year’s worth of learning16–20.”
From COVID-19, school closures, and student learning outcomes. New global evidence from PISA (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, our results are similar to what systematic reviews are finding learning16–20,44,45.”
From COVID-19, school closures, and student learning outcomes. New global evidence from PISA (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“While in the literature there is already a relatively large consensus that student learning suffered a setback due to Covid-19, as pointed out by several researchers (e.g., Donnelly & Patrinos, 2022; Patrinos et al., 2022)”
From The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Donnelly & Patrinos, 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Discussion
“The only limited information that is currently available is from Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, the United States, and Australia.”
§ Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review > Analytical review
“| Schult, Mahler, Fauth, & Lindner (2021) | Germany | 8.5 weeks | Primary (Grade 5) | Reading | 0.07 SD | Yes | 80,000 students |”
Citations
Cites
Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022376118 · Cited by 1,848 · cited 1×
“Engzell, Frey, and Verhagen (2021) find that, overall, Grade 4–7 students in the Netherlands have encountered an average 0.08 SD learning loss in math, spelling, and reading.”
BackgroundInfluentialLearning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2020) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/ve4z7 · Cited by 1,739
Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 · Cited by 1,717
Returns to investment in education: a decennial review of the global literature
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018) · Education Economics · doi:10.1080/09645292.2018.1484426 · Cited by 869 · cited 2×
“Likewise, another year of schooling is, on average, associated with an 8–9 percent gain in future earnings (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018).”
Self-citationInfluence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education
Gonzalez, T., de la Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. M. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239490 · Cited by 743 · cited 2×
“Gore et al. (2021) found Year 3 students studying math in low ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) schools in Australia to be two months behind the progress students made in 2019.”
BackgroundThe effect of school closures on standardised student test outcomes
Maldonado, J. E., & De Witte, K. (2022) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.3754 · Cited by 499
Goldemberg, D., Azevedo, J. P., Iqbal, S. A., Hasan, A., & Geven, K. (2020) · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-9284 · Cited by 476
Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A., & Moser, U. (2021) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1002/ijop.12728 · Cited by 378 · cited 1×
“Tomasik, Helbling, and Moser (2020) found learning progress of primary-school students in Switzerland during in-person learning to be more than twice as high compared to the progress made during the eight-week school closure.”
ResultReturns to investment in education
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (1993) · Cited by 352
Self-citationHasan, A., Azevedo, J. P., Goldemberg, D., Geven, K., & Iqbal, S. A. (2021) · doi:10.1596/40037 · Cited by 349
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 · Cited by 1,717
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4 · Cited by 568
The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis
Di Pietro, G. (2023) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100530 · Cited by 173
“The reviews by Patrinos et al. (2022), Moscoviz and Evans (2022), Donnelly and Patrinos (2022), Hammerstein et al. (2021) and Zierer (2021) summarised the results of 35 studies, 29 studies, 8 studies, 11 studies and 9 studies, respectively.”
Hevia, F. J., Vergara-Lope, S., Velásquez-Durán, A., & Calderón, D. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102515 · Cited by 158
The impacts of remote learning in secondary education during the pandemic in Brazil
Lichand, G., Doria, C. A., Leal-Neto, O., & Fernandes, J. P. C. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01350-6 · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- World Bank (US)
- Corresponding author
- Patrinos, Harry Anthony
- Venue
- PROSPECTS
- Published
- 2021-11-10
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 601-609
- ISSN
- 0033-1538 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-9090
- PMC
- PMC8579897
- OpenAlex
- W3160694446
- Semantic Scholar
- 0f30b9581217f4e6d54a5edfe4218c1f0bacbcd6
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 9
- FWCI
- 20.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Prospects (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
- Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
- Keywords
- learning loss, COVID-19 pandemic, student learning progress, educational disruption, learning gains, educational inequality, student demographics, school closures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
