Cited by 588Education during COVID-19 pandemicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsSchool Choice and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 15 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic led to numerous governments deciding to close schools for several weeks in spring 2020. Empirical evidence on the impact of COVID-19-related school closures on academic achievement is only just emerging. The present work aimed to provide a first systematic overview of evidence-based studies on general and differential effects of COVID-19-related school closures in spring 2020 on student achievement in primary and secondary education. Results indicate a negative effect of school closures on student achievement, specifically in younger students and students from families with low socioeconomic status. Moreover, certain measures can be identified that might mitigate these negative effects. The findings are discussed in the context of their possible consequences for national educational policies when facing future school closures.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review synthesizes 11 studies on COVID-19-related school closures in spring 2020 and finds mostly negative effects on student achievement, with a median effect of −0.08 SD. Negative effects were especially pronounced for younger students and students from low socioeconomic status families, while some online-learning software studies reported positive effects.

Key findings

  • Across included studies, effects ranged from −0.37 SD to +0.25 SD, with a median of −0.08 SD; median effects were −0.10 SD for mathematics and −0.09 SD for reading.
  • Seven studies reported negative effects on mathematics, five on reading, and two on other subjects such as science.
  • Differential effects: younger children were more negatively affected than older children (−0.37 SD vs. −0.10 SD; Tomasik et al., 2020), and low-SES students were more affected, with one study reporting +60% learning loss in low-SES students (Engzell et al., 2021).
  • Three studies using online-learning software reported positive effects (+0.20 SD in Meeter, +0.25 SD for correct solutions to open questions in van der Velde et al., and improved mathematics performance in Spitzer and Musslick).

Methods

  • Systematic review following PRISMA; searched Web of Science from March 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021, plus preprint servers PsyArXiv, EdArXiv, and SocArXiv, yielding 601 potentially relevant studies.
  • Inclusion required a focus on COVID-19-related school closures, primary/secondary education, student achievement/test scores as dependent variable, actual data collected prior to and during/after closures, statistical analyses, and reported effect sizes; final inclusion was 9 studies plus 2 from backward reference searching (11 total).
  • Risk of bias assessed with ROBINS-I; synthesis extracted country, closure duration, sample, subjects, statistical method, general effects, and differential effects, converting effects to SD where possible and calculating medians; meta-analytic models were not feasible due to the small number of studies.

Limitations

  • The paper states that evidence is available for only a small number of countries, clustered around developed countries, with no studies from developing countries yet.
  • The paper states that the original studies were not designed to identify reasons for the differential effects, so additional studies are required to explain them exhaustively.
  • The paper states that the highest risk of bias was due to lack of inclusion of potential confounding variables (ROBINS-I Domain 1), and that the small number of studies prevented random- or mixed-effects meta-analytic models.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289

Cites

45 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

15 of 39 cited sources checked · 10 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 21 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
27 of 27
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In spring 2020, the ad hoc implementation of online teaching gave students, teachers, schools, and parents little time to prepare for or adapt to measures of remote learning.

    “the assumption that, in spring 2020, the ad hoc implementation of online teaching gave students, teachers, schools, and parents little time to prepare for or adapt to measures of remote learning.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    COVID-19 related school closures were not intended interventions.

    “This is because the COVID-19 related school closures were not intended interventions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The first COVID-19-related school closures in spring 2020 were followed by similar measures in the fall and winter of 2020/2021.

    “The first COVID-19-related school closures in spring 2020 were followed by similar measures in the fall and winter of 2020/2021.”
3 of 3

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Engzell study credited with a result in a subject not listed in Table 1

    Minor

    The results section counts Engzell et al. among studies reporting a negative effect in other subjects, such as science, but Table 1 lists only reading and mathematics for that study.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 38 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 455

Metadata

Authors
Hammerstein, S., König, C., Dreisörner, T., & Frey, A.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Hammerstein, Svenja
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-09-16
Volume
12
Pages
746289-746289
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3172046965
Cited by
588
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 15
FWCI
19.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (acceptedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, primary education, secondary education, socioeconomic status, low-income students, younger students, education policy, mitigation measures

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).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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