CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 262Education during COVID-19 pandemicSchool Choice and PerformanceCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts

Did students learn less during the COVID-19 pandemic? reading and mathematics competencies before and after the first pandemic wave

Schult, Johannes, Mahler, Nicole, Fauth, Benjamin, Lindner, Marlit Annalena·2021·School Effectiveness and School Improvement
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/pqtgf

Preprint — published as 10.1080/09243453.2022.2061014 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted regular classes in spring 2020. Temporary school closures supposedly led to a considerable learning loss, particularly for low-achieving students. Schools in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, were closed for two months. Although distance learning was implemented, students spent less time learning. Additionally, teachers were faced with organizational and technological challenges of remote learning environments. The present study investigates the competencies of fifth-graders, using large-scale assessment results in reading and mathematics from annual mandatory tests in September (each n > 80,000). In line with studies from other countries, competence scores were slightly lower in 2020 compared with the three previous years (–0.07 standard deviations for reading comprehension, –0.09 for operations, and –0.03 for numbers). Low-achieving readers managed to attain pre-pandemic competence levels. Regarding mathematics competencies, low-achieving students seem to have a learning backlog that deserves attention in future education. School characteristic such as the average socio-cultural capital and the proportion of students with migration background played a minor role in mediating the schools' learning loss. Still, lower socio-cultural capital was positively associated with larger learning loss in mathematics.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using statewide mandatory “Lernstand 5” data from Baden-Württemberg, this study compared incoming fifth-graders’ reading and mathematics competencies in September 2020 with those from 2017–2019. It found small average declines after the first COVID-19 school closures, with heterogeneous patterns across achievement levels and domains.

Key findings

  • Population means were slightly lower in 2020 than in 2017–2019: reading comprehension *d* = −0.07, operations *d* = −0.09, and numbers *d* = −0.03 (all *p* < .001).
  • Percentile comparisons showed mixed patterns: in reading, the bottom 5% was similar (2017–2019: 299 vs. 2020: 300), while the 25th–95th percentiles were 9–17 points lower in 2020; in operations, the 5th–75th percentiles were 1–28 points lower, but the 95th percentile was higher in 2020 (656 vs. 667); in numbers, the 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles were similar, while the 5th and 25th percentiles were 5–7 points lower.
  • School-level change scores correlated strongly between the two mathematics domains (*r* = .50, *p* < .001) and moderately between reading and mathematics (*r* = .26 and .29, both *p* < .001). Higher socio-cultural capital was associated with more positive operations change scores (*r* = .36, *p* < .001); other school-characteristic correlations were weak and heterogeneous.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional cohort comparison using the mandatory statewide “Lernstand 5” assessment at the beginning of grade 5 in Baden-Württemberg; the 2020 cohort was compared with the pooled 2017–2019 cohorts. Each year’s sample was *n* > 80,000; 2020 reading *n* = 81,810 and mathematics *n* = 81,550, with pooled 2017–2019 *n* = 249,862 for reading and 250,109 for mathematics.
  • Three linked competence tests were analyzed: reading comprehension, operations, and numbers. Scores were scaled with a Rasch model, ten plausible values were drawn, and Cohen’s *d* was used for standardized differences.
  • Analyses compared population means, selected percentiles (5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%), and school-level change scores. For school-characteristic analyses, *k* = 1,065 schools remained after excluding 152 schools; change scores were correlated with the proportion of students with migration background and schools’ socio-cultural capital (average books at home).

Limitations

  • Stated: the design does not allow causal interpretation; results are between-student comparisons, not intra-individual learning gains; background characteristics were available only at the school level, risking ecological fallacy; average books at home was estimated from previous cohorts; year-to-year fluctuation and test-specific variance may affect 2020 scores; the study covers only reading and mathematics competencies, not well-being or social relatedness; suspended grade repetitions may have added low-achieving students, theoretically accounting for up to 0.01 standard deviations.
  • Evident from the text: participation was voluntary for students with special needs and absent students did not participate, and participation rates were lower in 2020 (94.9% reading, 94.6% mathematics) than in prior years (about 96%).

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/pqtgf

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    The present analysis shows an unexpected positive difference for reading competencies between 2019 and 2020.

    “Like the findings from Hamburg, the present analysis shows an unexpected positive difference for reading competencies between 2019 and 2020.”
    • Also stated in: § Comparisons for High-, Average-, and Low-Achieving Groups (RQ2) · plain
      “The year-to-year comparison of 2020 with 2019 shows standardized differences of d = +0.07 for reading comprehension, d = -0.07 for operations, and d = -0.02 for numbers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Limitations

    There was considerable year-to-year fluctuation in the prepandemic years.

    “As shown in Figure 1, there was a considerable year-to-year fluctuation in the prepandemic years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § School Change Scores and School Characteristics (RQ3)

    The correlation between schools' change scores in the two mathematics competence domains (operations and numbers) was large (r = .50, p < .001).

    “The correlation between schools' change scores in the two mathematics competence domains were large ( r = .50, p < .001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning
    § Discussion

    Differences in mathematics assessment scores before and after the first wave of the pandemic were on average closer to zero in the numbers domain than in the operations domain.

    “Differences in mathematics assessment scores before and after the first wave of the pandemic were on average closer to zero in the numbers domain than in the operations domain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Comparisons for High-, Average-, and Low-Achieving Groups (RQ2)

    In operations, students at the 5th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles scored 1 to 28 points less in 2020 than in 2017-2019.

    “Students in the groups with lower levels of competence at the 5 %, 25 %, 50 %, and 75 % percentile had scored 1 to 28 points less in 2020 than in the three previous pre-pandemic years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingreasoning
    § Limitations

    The effect of additional low-achieving students in the 2020 cohort may theoretically account for up to 0.01 standard deviations.

    “Assuming that the additional students are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution, this effect may theoretically account for up to 0.01 standard deviations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The additional students in the 2020 cohort are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § School Change Scores and School Characteristics (RQ3)

    The remaining correlations between school characteristics (migration background, socio-cultural capital) and change scores were weak and heterogeneous (|r| < .3; p < .001, except for numbers both p > .01).

    “The remaining correlations between the school characteristics and the change scores were weak and heterogeneous (| r | < .3; p < .001, except for numbers both p > .01; RQ3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Comparisons for High-, Average-, and Low-Achieving Groups (RQ2)

    In numbers, cut levels were similar for the 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles and 5 to 7 points lower for the 25th and 5th percentiles in 2020 compared to 2017-2019.

    “In numbers, cut levels were similar for the 50 %, 75 %, and 95 % percentiles and 5 to 7 points lower for the 25 % and 5 % percentiles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § School Change Scores and School Characteristics (RQ3)

    The correlations between the two background variables (migration background and socio-cultural capital) with each other (r = -.71, p < .001) and with average school competence scores (|r| > .65, p < .001) were very large.

    “However, the correlations between the two background variables with each other ( r = -.71, p < .001) as well as with the average school competence scores (| r | > .65, p < .001) were very large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    The annual learning gains in the present study were larger than these projections, ranging from 83-89 % in reading to 84-87 % in numbers and 95-96 % in numbers.

    “The annual learning gains in the present study were larger than these projections, ranging from 83-89 % in reading to 84-87 % in numbers and 95-96 % in numbers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § The Development of Student Achievement During the First Wave of the Pandemic

    Learning losses were larger, at least in reading tests, for schools with a large proportion of students with a migration background and for students from less-educated homes.

    “Moreover, learning losses were larger, at least in reading tests, for schools with a large proportion of students with a migration background (Maldonado & De Witte, 2021) and for students from less-educated homes (Engzell et al., 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Maldonado & De Witte, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Engzell et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § The Development of Student Achievement During the First Wave of the Pandemic

    In the Netherlands, the learning loss effect was larger in schools with a high proportion of students with a migration background and in schools with a high proportion of students from non-academic families.

    “The effect was larger in schools with a high proportion of students with a migration background and in schools with a high proportion of students from non-academic families.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Engzell et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § The Development of Student Achievement During the First Wave of the Pandemic

    Schools in Belgium were closed for nine weeks in spring 2020, and comparison of test scores from June 2020 with the previous year showed a learning loss of 0.19 standard deviations in mathematics and 0.23 standard deviations in Dutch.

    “Schools in Belgium were closed for nine weeks in spring 2020. The comparison of test scores from June 2020 with test scores from the previous year showed a learning loss of 0.19 standard deviations in mathematics and of 0.23 standard deviations in Dutch (Maldonado & De Witte, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Maldonado & De Witte, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § The Development of Student Achievement During the First Wave of the Pandemic

    In Hamburg, Germany, incoming fifth-graders' reading scores were higher in the pandemic year 2020 than in 2019 (0.05 standard deviations), while mathematics scores were slightly lower (0.02 standard deviations).

    “Surprisingly, students' reading scores were actually higher in the pandemic year 2020 compared to the previous year (0.05 standard deviations). Mathematics scores were slightly lower in 2020 compared to 2019 (0.02 standard deviations).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Depping et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Study Design and Participating Student Cohorts

    The tests are mandatory for all public secondary schools in the federal state.

    “The tests are mandatory for all public secondary schools in the federal state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Data Preparation and Data Analysis

    Choosing the three previous years as comparison group is in line with prior approaches, and using more than one year for comparisons reduces possible outlier effects.

    “Choosing the three previous years as comparison group is in line with the approach taken by Engzell et al. (2021) and by Maldonado and De Witte (2021). Using more than one year for comparisons reduces possible outlier effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Engzell et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Maldonado & De Witte, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    There was less time than usual to focus on the application of operations in tasks that require multistep problem solving and a translation of mathematical relations to real world settings.

    “In contrast, there may have been less time than usual to focus on the application of operations in tasks that require multistep problem solving and a translation of mathematical relations to real world settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Study Design and Participating Student Cohorts

    Teachers mark the tests using standardized coding instructions.

    “Teachers mark the tests using standardized coding instructions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    The lockdown forced teachers and students to spend more time with basic reading tasks, including distance learning via email, chat, and work sheets.

    “A possible explanation could be that the lockdown forced teachers and students to spend more time with basic reading tasks, including distance learning via email, chat, and work sheets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Data Preparation and Data Analysis

    The analysis uses entire population cohorts.

    “The analysis uses entire population cohorts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Study Design and Participating Student Cohorts

    The test results are not affecting grades in the classroom, making 'Lernstand 5' a low-stakes assessment.

    “The test results are not affecting grades in the classroom, making 'Lernstand 5' a low-stakes assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Measures

    The tests in the pilot studies contained new items along with a set of linking items that remained constant throughout the years.

    “The tests in the pilot studies contained new items along with a set of linking items that remained constant throughout the years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations

    The average number of books at home was an estimate from previous student cohorts.

    “Moreover, the average number of books at home was an estimate from previous student cohorts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations

    The analysis is based on between-student comparisons.

    “The analysis is based on between-student comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The heterogeneity within schools may pose a greater challenge to teachers than a slight pandemic-related attenuation of the schools' mean competence level.

    “This heterogeneity within schools may well pose a greater challenge to teachers than a slight pandemic-related attenuation of the schools' mean competence level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    In Hamburg, social school characteristics played only a minor role in the explanation of school differences.

    “This result is in line with findings from Hamburg, where social school characteristics played only a minor role in the explanation of school differences (Depping et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Depping et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations

    The present study only provides insights regarding changes of reading and mathematics competencies.

    “With its focus on specific competencies, the present study only provides insights regarding changes of reading and mathematics competencies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    School closures are not followed by a uniform loss of learning across all groups of students but rather by a heterogeneous learning backlog.

    “This may indicate that school closures are not followed by a uniform loss of learning across all groups of students but rather by a heterogeneous learning backlog (RQ2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Comparisons for High-, Average-, and Low-Achieving Groups (RQ2)

    Taken together, the differences in reading comprehension were larger for high-achieving students, whereas in mathematics they were larger for low-achieving students.

    “Taken together, the differences in reading comprehension were larger for high-achieving students, whereas in mathematics they were larger for low-achieving students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Teachers put a stronger emphasis on arithmetic tasks that students could practice at home on their own during the pandemic year 2020.

    “This may reflect that teachers put a stronger emphasis on arithmetic tasks that students could practice at home on their own during the pandemic year 2020.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Implications for Teaching

    Similar factors that make teaching effective are also critical when it comes to distance learning.

    “We suggest that similar factors are also critical when it comes to distance learning (Muijs, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Muijs, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Data Preparation and Data Analysis

    Using a higher number of pre-pandemic years for comparisons could have introduced bias associated with more general long-term trends in student achievement.

    “Using a higher number of pre-pandemic years for comparisons, however, could have introduced bias associated with more general long-term trends in student achievement (Stanat et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stanat et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    The present findings suggest that teachers', parents', and students' efforts to adapt to the disruption were often beneficial, because the cohort differences were smaller than the estimated short-term loss of learning during the actual school lockdown.

    “Overall, the present findings suggest that teachers' (as well as parents' and students') efforts to adapt to the disruption were often beneficial, because the cohort differences turned out to be smaller than the estimated short-term loss of learning during the actual school lockdown (Engzell et al., 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Engzell et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Maldonado & De Witte, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Implications for Teaching

    The exact causal links between formative online assessment and performance remain unclear because the samples were self-selected and the interventions were at the same time the competence assessment used as outcome.

    “Still, the exact causal links remain unclear, because the samples were self-selected and the interventions were at the same time the competence assessment used as outcome (which facilitates method effects).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Implications for Teaching

    Advanced digitalization of schools seems to be a necessary precondition for effective distance teaching and learning.

    “Advanced digitalization of schools seems to be a necessary precondition for effective distance teaching and learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations

    The suspension of mandatory grade repetitions might have led to a larger than usual number of low-achieving students in the 2020 cohort.

    “This might also have led to a larger than usual number of low-achieving students in the 2020 cohort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In Germany, students with low achievements often have to repeat a grade.
    • Rests on an assumption: In the wake of the first COVID-19 wave, mandatory grade repetitions were suspended.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations

    The analysis of school characteristics (RQ3) cannot be translated directly to individual students without risking an ecological fallacy.

    “The analysis of school characteristics (RQ3) cannot be translated directly to individual students without risking an ecological fallacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Data Preparation and Data Analysis

    The difficulty parameters of the linking items were estimated in 2014 after the first pilot study and retained for the scaling of all subsequent pilot studies (fixed parameter calibration).

    “The difficulty parameters of the linking items were estimated in 2014 after the first pilot study and retained for the scaling of all subsequent pilot studies (fixed parameter calibration; Kolen & Brennan, 2014, p. 182-183).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kolen & Brennan, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations

    The 2020 scores may reflect not just effects of school closures but also specific variance introduced by the particular tests used in 2020 despite standardized development and scaling.

    “The 2020 scores may reflect not just effects of school closures but also specific variance introduced by the particular tests that were used in 2020 despite the standardized development and scaling.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations

    The background characteristics were only available at the school level.

    “The background characteristics were only available at the school level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2017-2019 cohorts are a valid pre-pandemic comparison for the 2020 cohort, such that observed differences reflect pandemic effects rather than secular trends or other cohort differences.

    “Using more than one year for comparisons reduces possible outlier effects. Using a higher number of pre-pandemic years for comparisons, however, could have introduced bias associated with more general long-term trends in student achievement (Stanat et al., 2017).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Germany, students with low achievements often have to repeat a grade.

    “In Germany, students with low achievements often have to repeat a grade ( n = 262 after the school year 2018/19 in Baden-Württemberg).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the wake of the first COVID-19 wave, mandatory grade repetitions were suspended.

    “In the wake of the first COVID-19 wave, such mandatory grade repetitions were suspended.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The additional students in the 2020 cohort are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution.

    “Assuming that the additional students are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution, this effect may theoretically account for up to 0.01 standard deviations.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Reasons for finding larger learning losses in mathematics than in reading might be that students spent more time on reading during school closures and that supporting children in reading skills might have been easier for parents than supporting mathematics.

    “On the other hand, reasons for finding larger learning losses in mathematics than in reading might be that students spent more time on reading during school closures and that supporting children in their reading skills might have been easier to realize for parents than supporting children in improving their competencies in mathematics (e.g., Depping et al., 2021; Schult et al., 2021).”

    From Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Schult et al., 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Low-performing students were more affected by COVID-19-related school closures in mathematics, while high-performing students were more affected in reading (Schult et al., 2021).

    “Third, low-performing students were more affected by COVID-19-related school closures in mathematics, while high-performing students were more affected by COVID-19-related school closures in reading (Schult et al., 2021).”

    From Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Schult et al., 2021

  • Schult et al. (2021) document that fifth-grade students are slightly behind across the board, with the largest impact among low-achieving students in math.

    “Schult et al. (2021) document that fifth-grade students are slightly behind across the board, with the largest impact among low-achieving students in math.”

    From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Schult et al. (2021)

  • In Baden-Württemberg, dispersion of pupils' competence levels within individual schools could pose greater challenges for teachers than a slight pandemic-related weakening of the average competence level.

    “Schult et al. [9] stated that the dispersion of the competence levels of pupils within the individual schools could pose greater challenges for the teachers than a slight pandemic-related weakening of the average competence level at the school [9] (p.18).”

    From Effects of Pandemic-Related School Closures on Pupils’ Performance and Learning in Selected Countries: A Rapid Review (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

  • In Baden-Württemberg, the more pronounced reading competence differences in high-performance pupils could be due to more time spent on basic reading tasks during school closures.

    “According to the authors of the study, this difference could be due to the fact that during school closures, more time is spent on basic reading tasks, such as reading e-mails and text in the chat [9] (p.17).”

    From Effects of Pandemic-Related School Closures on Pupils’ Performance and Learning in Selected Countries: A Rapid Review (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

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.

  • Annual learning-gain range is assigned to two different domains

    Minor

    The discussion gives two incompatible ranges for annual learning gains in the numbers domain: 84-87% and 95-96%. The reported effect sizes and baselines support 84-87% for operations and 95-96% for numbers.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ditton, H., & Krüsken, J. (2009). Denn wer hat, dem wird gegeben werden? Eine Längsschnittstudie zur Entwicklung schulischer Leistungen und den Effekten der sozialen Herkunft in der Grundschulzeit [To those who have, will more be given? A longitudinal study concerning the development of school achievement and the effects of social background during primary school]. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1 (1), 33-61.
  2. Krüsken, J. (2007). Entwicklung von Schülerleistungen und Zensuren in der Grundschule. In: H. Ditton (Ed.), Kompetenzaufbau und Laufbahnen im Schulsystem (pp. 41-62). Waxmann.
  3. Schulz, A., Leuders, T., & Rangel, U. (2017). Arithmetische Basiskompetenzen am Übergang zu Klasse 5 - eine empirie- und modellgestützte Diagnostik als Grundlage für spezifische Förderentscheidungen. In A. Fritz, S. Schmidt, & G. Ricken (Eds.), Handbuch Rechenschwäche (3rd ed., pp. 396-417). Beltz.
  4. Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S., & Haag, N. (Eds.) (2017 ). IQBBildungstrend 2016. Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich . Waxmann.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schult, J., Mahler, N., Fauth, B., & Lindner, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (DE)
Corresponding author
Schult, Johannes
ORCID
Venue
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2021-03-11
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
544-563
ISSN
0924-3453 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/pqtgf
OpenAlex
W4225792954
Cited by
262
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 1
FWCI
107.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • School Effectiveness and School Improvement (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, learning loss, school closures, distance education, reading comprehension, mathematical ability, fifth grade students, low-achieving students, socio-cultural capital, migration background, school characteristics, large-scale assessment, Baden-Württemberg

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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