The Effect of COVID on Oral Reading Fluency During the 2020–2021 Academic Year

Domingue, Benjamin W.; Dell, Madison; Lang, David; Silverman, Rebecca D.; Yeatman, Jason D.; Hough, Heather

doi:10.1177/23328584221120254

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ardington et al 36 Hevia et al 37 Lichand et al 38 Kogan and Lavertu 84 Kogan and Lavertu 83 Schuurman et al 69 Gambi and De Witte 55 GL Assessment 77 Blainey and Hannay 73 Rose et al 79 Contini et al 64 Maldonado and De Witte 56 Haelermans et al 68 Department for Education 76 Bazoli et al 62 Rose et al 78 Haelermans et al 67 Locke et al 88 Ludewig et al 59 Bielinski et al 90 Kuhfeld and Lewis 86 Pier et al 89 Kozakowski et al 85 Vegas 57 Blainey and Hannay 74 Department for Education 75 Lewis et al 87 Domingue et al 82 Haelermans 66 Domingue et al 81 Tomasik et al 50 Engzell et al 65 Schult et al 60 Blainey and Hannay 72 Schult et al 61 Arenas and Gortazar 70 Borgonovi and Ferrara 63 Weidman et al 80 Depping et al 58 Birkelund et al 29 Gore et al 54 Hallin et al 71…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

March 2021protocol via Twitter in order to crowd-source additional relevant studies not identified through the search. All titles and abstracts identified in our search were double-screened using the Rayyan online application. Fourth, to ensure that our analysis is comprehensive in terms of recent and relevant research, on February 14, 2022, and on August 8, 2022, we conducted two comprehensive forward and backward citation searches of all eligible studies identified in the above steps. As noted above, in order to be included in our research sample, estimates of learning progress had to be based on test score measures that could be standardized across studies using Cohen's d.From the studies that meet our inclusion criteria we extracted all estimates of learning progress of school-aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic, separately for math and reading and for different school grades. We also extract the corresponding sample size, standard error, date(s) of measurement, author name(s), and country. Last, we recorded whether studies differentiate between children's socio-economic background, which measure is used to this end, and whether studies find an increase, decrease or no change in learning inequality. We contacted study authors, if any of the information was missing in the study. Data extraction was performed by the first author and validated independently by the second author, with discrepancies resolved through discussion and by conferring with the third author. All extracted information was manually compiled in a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel (v.16.66.1) and then imported into the statistical program Stata (v.17.0) for our analyses. TimingOur data collection started on April 27, 2021 and ended on August 8, 2022. Data exclusionsStudies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis based on the inclusion criteria described in the pre-registered study protocol (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021249944). The PRISMA flow diagram in the manuscript (Figure 1) shows the number of studies included and excluded in the systematic review and meta-analysis, as well as the reasons for exclusion. Non-participationNo participants were involved in this study. RandomizationRandomization is not applicable to this study, since our systematic review and meta-analysis examines all available estimates of learning progress of school-aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting for specific materials, systems and methodsWe require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies. Here, indicate whether each material, system or method listed is relevant to your study. If you are not sure if a list item applies to your research, read the appropriate section before selecting a response.

show abstract

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And while emergency funding (e.g., ESSER) does help, it likely cannot overcome the initial disparities for some districts (as CALL data showed). These organizational disparities in expertise or resources matter because vulnerable student populations have been impacted most during the pandemic ( Belsha et al, 2020 ; Domingue et al, 2022 ; Kuhfeld et al, 2022 ; Jackson et al, 2022 ; Lewis et al, 2022 ; Muñiz, 2021 ; NAE, 2020 ; OECD, 2021 ; Patrick et al, 2021 ). Notwithstanding, it is important to note that both districts have exhibited the same resolve; leaders with whom we spoke have become stalwarts for their respective communities, gracefully inheriting numerous roles and responsibilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost immediately, 50 million K-12 students were pulled from their physical classrooms, along with 3.5 million teachers ( National Academy of Education, 2020 ). While districts have returned to in-person instruction ( Grossmann et al, 2021 ), the pandemic has negatively impacted students’ learning opportunities and academic performance, particularly for those traditionally underserved (e.g., Belsha et al, 2020 ; Domingue et al, 2022 ; Jackson et al, 2022 ; Kuhfeld et al, 2022 ; Lewis et al, 2022 ; Muñiz, 2021 ; NAE, 2020 ; OECD, 2021 ; Patrick et al, 2021 ). There has also been increased turnover and burnout among administrators ( DeMatthews, 2021 ; Sawchuck, 2021 ) and teachers ( Bleiberg & Kraft, 2022 ; Kraft et al, 2020 ; Pressley, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Policy and Local Context in Times of Crisis: District and School Leader Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Voto

Superfine

DeWit

2023

Educational Administration Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine how federal/state-level policy guidance and local context have influenced district and school leader responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as how these external/internal factors might provide a window into K-12 crisis leadership and policy sensemaking more broadly. Research: Investigating two districts over two years (2020–2022), data gathered include 39 hours of interviews with K-12 leaders (n = 41) and teachers (n = 18), federal/state-level policy documents (N = 64) governing these districts, and school staff responses to the Comprehensive Assessment of Leaders for Learning survey (N = 111). Drawing theoretically upon sensemaking, crisis leadership/management, law/policy implementation, and organizational theory, these data were analyzed using both inductive and deductive coding over several phases. Findings: In tracing the confluence of federal/state-level guidance and local capacities, we find both influenced K-12 leaders’ sensemaking and subsequent responses to COVID-19. However, districts that possessed adequate expertise and organizational resources were better positioned to respond to the crisis, whereas those lacking such capacities experienced increased anxiety/stress. Conclusion: We argue that the COVID-19 pandemic provides a new window into the critical external/internal factors influencing K-12 leader sensemaking and subsequent responses to crises more broadly. We also discuss the potential role intermediate service agencies might play in the development of a stronger crisis response infrastructure for associated districts and schools. Finally, we point out how principal preparation programs and professional development efforts could prospectively address such crisis-related challenges faced by K-12 leaders.

show abstract

“…The global pandemic outbreak has forced school closures to prevent the transmission of the coronavirus; this heavily disrupted children's learning opportunities, methods, and resources. Recent studies that estimated the impact of pandemic-related school closures on student learning progress among U.S. students from multiple states (e.g., Domingue et al, 2022;Education Policy Innovation Collaborative [EPIC], 2021; Kuhfeld et al, 2022;Pier et al, 2021) indicate that children's learning and academic development have suffered substantial setbacks during the pandemic school year when compared to a typical year unaffected by COVID-19. A report from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2021) shows that the average proficiency rates in reading in spring 2021 declined significantly, ranging from 7.4% (Grade 8) to 25.5% (Grade 6), compared to spring 2019, which means that fewer students were proficient in reading during the pandemic than a non-pandemic school year.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The COVID-19 impact on reading achievement growth of Grade 3–5 students in a U.S. urban school district: variation across student characteristics and instructional modalities

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study aimed to explore the COVID-19 impact on reading achievement growth by Grade 3-5 students in a large urban school district in the U.S. and whether the impact differed by students' demographic characteristics and instructional modality. Specifically, using administrative data from the school district, we investigated to what extent students made gains in reading during the 2020-2021 school year relative to the pre-COVID-19 typical school year in 2018-2019. We further examined whether the effects of students' instructional modality on reading growth varied by demographic characteristics. Overall, students had lower average reading achievement gains over the 9-month 2020-2021 school year than the 2018-2019 school year with a learning loss effect size of 0.54, 0.27, and 0.28 standard deviation unit for Grade 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Substantially reduced reading gains were observed from Grade 3 students, students from high-poverty backgrounds, English learners, and students with disabilities. Additionally, findings indicate that among students with similar demographic characteristics, higherachieving students tended to choose the fully remote instruction option, while lowerachieving students appeared to opt for in-person instruction at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year. However, students who received in-person instruction most likely demonstrated continuous growth in reading over the school year, whereas initially higher-achieving students who received remote instruction showed stagnation or decline, particularly in the spring 2021 semester. Our findings support the notion that in-person schooling during the pandemic may serve as an equalizer for lowerachieving students, particularly from historically marginalized or vulnerable student populations.

show abstract

The Effect of COVID on Oral Reading Fluency During the 2020–2021 Academic Year

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

Navigating Policy and Local Context in Times of Crisis: District and School Leader Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 impact on reading achievement growth of Grade 3–5 students in a U.S. urban school district: variation across student characteristics and instructional modalities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About