Educational gains of in‐person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID‐19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland
Open accessAbstract
Using data from a computer-based formative feedback system, we compare learning gains in the 8 weeks of school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland with learning gains in the 8 weeks before these school closures. The school performance in mathematics and language of N = 28,685 pupils is modelled in second-order piecewise latent growth models with strict measurement invariance for the two periods under investigation. While secondary school pupils remain largely unaffected by the school closures in terms of learning gains, for primary school pupils learning slows down and at the same time interindividual variance in learning gains increases. Distance learning arrangements seem an effective means to substitute for in-person learning, at least in an emergency situation, but not all pupils benefit to the same degree.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Tomasik, Helbling, and Moser (2021) find that on average, primary school pupils learned half as much under distance learning, and there was more inequality in their progression.
“On average, primary school pupils learned half as much under distance learning, and there was more inequality in their progression.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Tomasik, Helbling, and Moser (2021)
In Tomasik et al. (2021), those with higher ability going into the pandemic saw stronger effects, while secondary school students learned at the same speed as before.
“In particular, those with higher ability going into the pandemic saw stronger effects.Students in secondary school learned at the same speed as before.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Tomasik, Helbling, and Moser (2021)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blanden, J., Doepke, M., & Stuhler, J. (2022) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29979 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A., & Moser, U.
- Affiliations
- Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Tomasik, Martin J
- Venue
- Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
- Publisher
- Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
- Published
- 2021-08-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 566-576
- ISSN
- 0020-7594 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7753520
- OpenAlex
- W3106617860
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 97.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Social Sciences › Education › Online Learning Methods and Innovations
- Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
- Keywords
- COVID-19 school closures, distance education, in-person learning, learning gains, elementary school students, high school students, mathematics achievement, language achievement, measurement invariance, emergency remote education, Switzerland
- MeSH terms
- Academic Performance, COVID-19, Adolescent, Child, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Schools, Switzerland, Education, Distance, Pandemics
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
