Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic Analysis

The article “A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Betthäuser, Mortensen & Engzell (2023) follows the IMRAD format. It employs a scientific approach to examine the existing research and the writing styles and language choices used in different sections of the study, emphasizing the use of present and past tenses, technical terminology, hedging verbs to express caution, and the acknowledgment of limitations and the need for further research.

The abstract section uses the present tense to describe the study’s objective and current state of research on the topic, “A growing number of studies address this question” The past tense indicates the actions that have already occurred, such as “We find a substantial overall learning deficit” The word choice  is technical, using terms specific to research and data analysis, mentions a “meta-analysis,” and “Cohen’s d.” These terms indicate a scientific approach including numerical data, such as the effect size “Cohen’s d=−0.14” and confidence interval “95% confidence interval −0.17 to −0.1,”. Using phrases like “we find” and “there is a lack of evidence” suggests a cautious tone and acknowledges the study’s limitations and the existing research that are seen as a form of hedging, indicating that the findings are not absolute and that further research is needed.

 The introduction section’s writing style is informative and descriptive, presenting facts and statistics to support the statements. The voice is passive, focusing on the effects and consequences of the pandemic on education. The verb tenses used are a mix of past and present, reflecting both the historical context of the pandemic and the ongoing impact. Employs hedging verbs to express cautiousness and uncertainty, using phrases like “often been compromised” and “can be expected to be most pronounced.” The introduction sets the stage for understanding the learning deficit caused by the pandemic.

The methods section uses a combination of active and passive voice throughout the section. For example, “We consider all types of primary research” (active voice) but also uses the passive voice, “To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to measure learning progress.” Present tense to describe the eligibility criteria and search strategy but switching to the past tense when discussing the data extraction process and measurement dates, using technical and specific terms related to research methods, such as “Cohen’s d” for measuring learning progress and “forest plot” and “harvest plot” for visualizing data synthesis. Includes details about the database and the organizations consulted and objectively without hedging. 

The results section describes the number of studies included, and the geographic distribution of the evidence mentions the quality assessment of the evidence. Hedging verbs such as “identified” and “illustrates” convey the cautious nature of the findings. In the “The geographic reach of evidence is limited” section,  a table discusses the limited representation of low-income countries in the studies. “The quality of evidence is mixed” section, the risk-of-bias assessment process, and presents the distribution ratings. Non-hedging verbs like “analyzed,” “performed,” and “excluded” are used to indicate the objective evaluation of the evidence.

The discussion section uses the present tense to convey the current findings, “Our meta-analysis suggests that learning progress has slowed substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic,”. When discussing the existing studies, uses the past tense “Most studies that we identify find that learning deficits have been largest for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.”The author’s word choice is precise and academic. Hedging verbs are used to express caution or uncertainty, such as “suggests,” “implies,” and using hedging language to acknowledge the limitations of the research. The section is well-structured, with Transitions used effectively to connect ideas and maintain the flow of the discussion.

References 

Betthäuser BA, Bach-Mortensen AM, Engzell P. 2023 Jan 30. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour.:1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4. [accessed 2023 Feb 2]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01506-4#peer-review.

‌
Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic Analysis Draft

The article “A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic”. Published: 30 January, 2023 by Betthäuser, Mortensen & Engzell. The report is in IMRAD format, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis. Throughout the introduction, describe and appraise an up-to-date body of evidence, including its geographic reach and quality. The author’s voice is passive; for example, when they mention, “These negative consequences can be expected “(Betthauser et al., 2023). When they speak of the beginning of the problem they are investigating, the writers say in the past tense since they are discussing the results of the issues that had led to the learning deficit. The tone is neutral when providing data and additional resources but also proves a tone of concern. The study deals with covid 19 in school education, analyzing 15 countries with 42 studies and investigating why there is a learning deficit among low-income people.

Primary research included peer-reviewed publications, preprints, working papers, reports, and data from the studies analyses used to investigate the method. The writer used the choice of active voice and presented tense since they explained, “We identified relevant studies using the following steps”(Betthauser et al., 2023). In the present tense, the writer continues to process and explain their perspective of the step they used in the methods. Measurement standardization explanation and data synthesis are provided with additional resources. However, most of the

methods paragraph needed to be more concise and could have been written more shortly and clearly.

As for the results, six different types of data, including flow diagrams, charts, forest plots, harvest plots, and bar graphs, have helped them study the information and data analysis gathered from the research. They used passive voice while explaining and comparing their data to obtain results. For example, “but this was not always adjusted for”(Betthauser et al. 2023) and using past tense throughout. Another example of passive voice they used is “structures for online learning and for recovering early learning deficits that were set up”(Betthauser et al., 2023). They also use and provide references. The tone in which the data is analyzed is very formal and neutral.

In the discussion, the narrators talk about the process they are in and will go through to support students in which they recite help for their school performance. In explaining the facilitated assistance process, they speak in terms of present to future as they continue to act on the solutions and talk about what to do for the future to support their study in moving forward. They draw resources from additional information and speak in an optimistic tone. The discussion explains an active through all the paragraphs except one sentence in which they used passive voice as they say, “It is critical that this evidence gap on low- and middle-income countries is addressed swiftly, and that the infrastructure to collect and share data on educational performance in middle- and low-income countries is strengthened”(Betthauser et al. 2023). The article’s structure is adjusted since the method is placed after the discussion instead of before the

Results. However, their word choice contributed to the format. This article’s language was clear, easy to understand, and reliable.

References 

Betthäuser BA, Bach-Mortensen AM, Engzell P. 2023 Jan 30. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour.:1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4. [accessed 2023 Feb 2]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01506-4#peer-review.

Peer Editing Worksheet

‌