The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Opportunity Gaps
Open accessAbstract
Although many school districts made efforts to provide instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic (including in-person, remote, and blended/hybrid options the length of instruction time and delivery models have varied from district to district. This disruption in education has been projected to result in a significant learning loss, which may be particularly profound for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, leading to widening opportunity gaps. However, there is limited empirical data that can provide important contextual background for understanding the impact of the pandemic on student learning. Therefore, we conducted a national survey with a random sample of 582 elementary school teachers to understand the instructional changes that occurred, the amount of academic content instruction provided to students, and teachers’ perceptions of the learning supports needed and provided to students during the 2020-2021 school year. Results indicated that most teachers relied on alternative forms of instruction and experienced changes in delivery models but reported low instructional effectiveness. Compared to typical years, teachers reported significant decreases in curriculum coverage; the number of students who received needed interventions, and students who were ready to transition to the next grade level during the 2020-2021 school year. Teachers also reported greater impacts on instruction for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Follow-up analyses using prior school achievement data corroborated the findings that higher school achievement was associated with smaller impacts on student learning and delivery of instruction.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Namkung, J. M., Goodrich, J. M., Hebert, M., & Koziol, N. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- Corresponding author
- Namkung, Jessica M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Education
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2022-02-25
- Volume
- 7
- ISSN
- 2504-284X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4284706930
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 11.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- 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, student learning loss, opportunity gap, primary school teachers, curriculum coverage, academic intervention, disadvantaged students, teacher perceptions, academic performance, 2020-2021 academic year
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