PreprintCited by 17Education during COVID-19 pandemicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Primary school mathematics during Covid-19: No evidence of learning gaps in adaptive practicing results

Open access
Meeter, Martijn·2021

Abstract

During the spring of 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic induced many governments to close schools for many months. In the Netherlands, primary schools were closed during a lockdown lasting from March until June. While education was continued online, evidence so far suggests that learning has suffered from the lockdown. Here, we report results from Dutch primary schools that relied on adaptive practicing software for teaching mathematics. The software, installed on tablets that could be taken home by the pupils, continued to be used during school closures. Performance was tracked throughout the lockdown for 53,656 pupils in grades 2 through 6 from 810 schools, and compared to performance of similar pupils in the preceding year. While performance up to the lockdown was similar for school year 2019-20, during the lockdown learning was faster that it had been in 2018-19, contradicting results reported so far. These enhanced gains were correlated with increased use, and remained after the lockdown ended. Pupils ended the year with a higher proficiency score than was reached in earlier years. This was the case for all grades but more so for lower grades, for strong and weak students but more so for weak students, and less so for students in schools with disadvantaged populations than in schools with non-disadvantaged populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/8un6x

Cites

11 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 13 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2020). Learning inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic. (https://osf.io/download/5f995b4687b7df03233b06fe/). OSF preprint.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meeter, M.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Meeter, Martijn
Published
2021-01-18
OpenAlex
W4237459334
Cited by
16
References
13
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
COVID-19 lockdown, school closures, primary school mathematics, adaptive learning software, learning gaps, online learning, tablet-based learning, mathematics proficiency, academic performance, disadvantaged students, learning gains

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.

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