4.7 Article

The impacts of remote learning in secondary education during the pandemic in Brazil

期刊

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 1079-1086

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01350-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a differences-in-differences approach, the study estimates the effects of remote learning in Sao Paulo, Brazil during the pandemic. The findings suggest that middle- and high-school students learned only 27.5% of the in-person equivalent and that dropout risk increased by 365%. Partially resuming in-person classes increased test scores by 20% relative to the control group.
Using a differences-in-differences approach, Lichand et al. estimate the effects of remote learning in Sao Paulo, Brazil, during the pandemic. Their findings suggest that middle- and high-school students learned only 27.5% of the in-person equivalent and that dropout risk increased by 365%. The transition to remote learning in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might have led to dramatic setbacks in education. Taking advantage of the fact that Sao Paulo State featured in-person classes for most of the first school quarter of 2020 but not thereafter, we estimate the effects of remote learning in secondary education using a differences-in-differences strategy that contrasts variation in students' outcomes across different school quarters, before and during the pandemic. We also estimate intention-to-treat effects of reopening schools in the pandemic through a triple-differences strategy, contrasting changes in educational outcomes across municipalities and grades that resumed in-person classes or not over the last school quarter in 2020. We find that, under remote learning, dropout risk increased by 365% while test scores decreased by 0.32 s.d., as if students had only learned 27.5% of the in-person equivalent. Partially resuming in-person classes increased test scores by 20% relative to the control group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据