Cited by 173Education during COVID-19 pandemicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsSchool Choice and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 38 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis

Open access
Di Pietro, Giorgio·2023·Educational Research Review

Abstract

This work attempts to synthetize existing research about the impact of Covid-19 school closure on student achievement. It extends previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses by (a) using a more balanced sample in terms of country composition, (b) considering new moderators (type of data and research design), and (c) including studies on tertiary education students in addition to primary and secondary education students. Our meta-analysis findings show that the pandemic had, on average, a detrimental effect on learning. The magnitude of this learning deficit (about 0.19 standard deviations of student achievement) appears to be roughly comparable to that suffered by students who have experienced a significant disruption in their schooling due to a major natural disaster (e.g., Hurricane Katrina). Students are also found to have lost more ground in math/science than in other subjects. Additionally, one year or more after the first lockdown, students seem to have been unable to catch up on unfinished learning from the pandemic. This result suggests that more efforts should be made to ensure students recover their missed learning in order to avoid negative long-term consequences for them and society.

Checked 2026-10-07 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This meta-analysis of 239 estimates from 39 studies across 19 countries finds that Covid-19 school closures reduced student achievement by about 0.19 standard deviations on average. Learning deficits were larger in math/science and showed no statistically significant recovery by 2021.

Key findings

  • The random-effects robust variance estimation mean effect size was −0.186 SD (SE = 0.0646, p = 0.0065, 95% CI [−0.316, −0.055]), described as roughly comparable to losses after major natural disasters and equivalent to just over half a school year.
  • Math/science achievement was 0.17 SD lower than humanities/subject mix, other things equal.
  • There was no statistically significant difference between assessments in 2020 and 2021, suggesting students had not caught up more than one year after the first lockdown.
  • Learning deficits were smaller in Europe than non-Europe, and studies using quasi-experimental/experimental designs or cross-sectional data tended to find larger deficits than descriptive/correlational or longitudinal studies.

Methods

  • PRISMA-guided meta-analysis; searched six electronic databases through 15 July 2022, yielding 6,075 hits and a final sample of 39 studies, 239 effect sizes, and 19 countries.
  • Effect sizes were converted to Cohen’s d; the main model used random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation to account for multiple dependent estimates per study, plus weighted least squares meta-regression with general-to-specific selection and Bayesian Model Averaging.
  • Moderators included subject, education level, timing of assessment, geographical area, data type, research design, publication year/type, and standard error; publication bias was assessed with a Doi plot/LFK index and Egger’s test.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the analysis was not conducted at grade level, so it cannot rule out disproportionate effects on very young pupils (e.g., grade 1) or heterogeneity within primary school children.
  • Stated in the paper: ROBINS-I assessment found confounding, participant selection, and missing data were common sources of potential bias; vulnerable students were under-represented in some Covid-19 samples, likely underestimating learning delays, while the direction of bias was unclear in convenience samples.
  • Evident from the text: the evidence base is limited to 39 studies and 19 countries, the search ended in July 2022, and tertiary education is represented by only 10 effect sizes; publication bias tests found no asymmetry (LFK index = 0; Egger’s test p = 0.380).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100530

Cites

112 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the search and screening process.
Fig. 1 Flow chart of the search and screening process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Doi plot.
Fig. 2 Doi plot.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

27 Not checked yet · 18 Own result · 10 Own method · 6 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given

Verify all 38 references — free account

Show all 27 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The European countries included in the study have, on average, a higher GDP per capita than most non-European countries included (except US and Australia).

    “the European countries considered in this study have, on average, a higher gross domestic product per capita than most of the non-European countries included in the analysis (this is not true for the US and Australia).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample used in this meta-analysis is more balanced in terms of country composition than previous meta-analyses.

    “it should be taken into account that we use a more balanced sample in terms of country composition.”
2 of 2

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 122 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Borgonovi, 2022, A longitudinal perspective of the effects of Covid-19 on students' resilience, The effect of the pandemic on the reading and mathematics achievement of 5th and 8th graders in Italy
  2. Burgess, 2020, How we should deal with the lockdown learning loss in England's schools, VOX CEPR Policy Portal
  3. Marinoni, 2020, The impact of Covid-19 on higher education around the world, IAU Global Survey Report

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–170 of 170

Metadata

Authors
Di Pietro, G.
Venue
Educational Research Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
39
Pages
100530
ISSN
1747-938X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4328053575
Cited by
173
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 22
FWCI
127.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Research Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission Joint Research Centre
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 › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, school closures, academic performance, learning loss, learning recovery, tertiary students, K-12 education, math and science achievement, Hurricane Katrina, lockdown duration

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