research elementary school teachers

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2023

Elementary school teachers’ perspectives about learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Aymee Alvarez-Rivero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0489-5708 1 ,
• Candice Odgers 2 , 3 &
• Daniel Ansari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7625-618X 1  

npj Science of Learning volume  8 , Article number:  40 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4102 Accesses

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

How did school closures affect student access to education and learning rates during the COVID-19 pandemic? How did teachers adapt to the new instructional contexts? To answer these questions, we distributed an online survey to Elementary School teachers ( N  = 911) in the United States and Canada at the end of the 2020–2021 school year. Around 85.8% of participants engaged in remote instruction, and nearly half had no previous experience teaching online. Overall, this transition was challenging for most teachers and more than 50% considered they were not as effective in the classroom during remote instruction and reported not being able to deliver all the curriculum expected for their grade. Despite the widespread access to digital technologies in our sample, nearly 65% of teachers observed a drop in class attendance. More than 50% of participants observed a decline in students’ academic performance, a growth in the gaps between low and high-performing students, and predicted long-term adverse effects. We also observed consistent effects of SES in teachers’ reports. The proportion of teachers reporting a drop in performance increases from 40% in classrooms with high-income students, to more than 70% in classrooms with low-income students. Students in lower-income households were almost twice less likely to have teachers with previous experience teaching online and almost twice less likely to receive support from adults with homeschooling. Overall, our data suggest the effects of the pandemic were not equally distributed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability

Introduction.

The sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had a profound effect on education worldwide 1 , 2 , with the aftermath of more than 180 countries experiencing school closures and more than 1.5 billion students left out of school 3 . Despite the efforts of governments and education institutions to provide alternative learning opportunities, the long periods that students had to spend away from the classroom have raised concerns about the potential long-term consequences on academic achievement, and the unequal effect that it will have on students from vulnerable and marginalized groups 4 , who had to navigate the challenges of at-home schooling while their families struggled with financial burdens 5 .

Empirical data about changes in students’ performance has been slow to emerge. One of the earliest pieces of evidence comes from a study in The Netherlands by Engzell, Frey, and Verhagen 6 . The authors analyzed changes in performance associated with school closures, using a uniquely rich dataset with more than 350,000 students in primary school. The data included biannual test scores collected at the middle and the end of each school year from 2017 and 2020. Critically, in 2020, the mid-year tests took place right before the first school closures in The Netherlands, providing a benchmark that authors could use to estimate learning losses. The authors identified an overall decrease in academic performance equivalent to 0.08 standard deviation units. Moreover, the effects on learning outcomes were not uniform, as students from less-educated households experienced losses 60% more pronounced than the general population.

These findings are critical since they provide evidence of the potential effects of the pandemic in a “best-case” scenario. More than 90% of students in The Netherlands had access to a computer at home, and more than 95% had access to the internet and a quiet place to study 7 . But even in this context of high levels of access to digital resources, equitable funding for elementary schools, and average-to-high performance prior to the pandemic, school closures have had tangible effects on learning outcomes, especially for children with disadvantaged backgrounds.

Similar studies comparing students’ performance before and after COVID have been conducted in other countries 8 , 9 . Most of them have found evidence of learning losses and slower rates of growth in academic abilities during the 2020–2021 school year 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , while others did not find any negative effects 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 .

Moreover, there is strong evidence suggesting that pre-existing inequalities in education have become more pronounced. Even before the pandemic, achievement gaps across socio-economic status (SES) were evident since kindergarten and persisted across education years 27 , 28 . During the pandemic, students from disadvantaged backgrounds suffered longer school closures 29 and had less access to computers and internet for schoolwork 7 , 30 , 31 , 32 . In addition, families facing financial struggles were in less favorable positions to dedicate resources and time to school activities at home 33 . As a result of these and other limitations, learning losses have been more severe for students from racial minorities 15 , 19 , 34 , with less educated parents 6 , 17 or those coming from low-income households 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 34 , 35 .

Recent attempts to synthesize the literature about learning losses 8 estimate that students have lost the equivalent of 35% of an academic year’s worth of learning. However, further data is necessary to assess the real extent to which the pandemic has impacted learning. On one hand, the data about changes in students’ performance is still very scarce, due to the limitations that remote learning imposed on school abilities to continue standardized assessments. Moreover, students from disadvantaged groups are more likely to be underrepresented 11 , 34 , 36 , both within countries and on a global scale 8 . Therefore, further evidence is needed to assess the real extent of the effects of the pandemic across different socio-economic conditions.

Teachers are a critical source of information that has not been considered enough. Teachers were at the front line of the education efforts during the pandemic and observed the impact on student learning and academic performance firsthand. While not free of biases, they are possibly the best-informed source of information about students’ abilities to benefit from these efforts, using their own previous experience as a comparison point. Critically, teachers’ observations are available across all school contexts and socio-economic strata. Therefore, they can provide insights into the effects of the pandemic that are representative of a wider variety of contexts than the ones included in a recent analysis of individual differences. Elementary school teachers more specifically, establish a unique relationship with their students, as they instruct them in multiple subjects, compared to higher education where students’ curriculum and interests are more heterogeneous, and students are often taught different subjects by different teachers. As a result, in the current context of data scarcity, elementary school teachers may be better prepared to aggregate individual student information into group-level estimates than can be accessed through survey methods.

Moreover, understanding teacher’s experiences throughout the pandemic is of critical importance for the future of education. Multiple studies have indicated that teachers have experienced higher levels of dissatisfaction and a lower sense of success during the pandemic 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , resulting in increased levels of attrition rates worldwide 42 .

The present study presents the results of a survey distributed to teachers in Canada and the US, right at the end of the 2020–2021 school year. Our survey obtained participants’ assessments about three overarching issues: (1) How did teachers experience the transition to emergency remote learning? (2) How were equitable opportunities to access education impacted by school closures? and (3) Have students experienced learning losses or gains during the pandemic? We also collected additional data about variables regarding the socio-economic context of students to explore the generalizability of our data to different school and classroom contexts.

Teachers’ experience transitioning from in-person to remote classes

Table 1 summarizes some of the variables that assessed teachers’ experience transitioning to remote learning. We expected that teachers’ previous experiences with online teaching and technology may have influenced how well they adapted to these changes. Overall, the observed distributions show that we recruited participants with different levels of previous preparation and training in both countries.

Notably, the proportion of teachers with no previous experience teaching online goes from 40% for high-SES students, to more than 75% for low SES students. This association was statistically significant \(({\tau }_{c}=0.22{;p}\, < \,0.001)\) . Although weak, we also found significant interactions between student’s income level and the amount of training teachers received ( X 2  = 23.44; p  = 0.024, df  = 12, Cramer ′ sV  = 0.09). We also observed higher levels of proficiency using digital technologies for educational purposes \(({\tau }_{c}=0.08{;p}=0.007)\) for teacher of higher-income students. As we expected, switching to remote education was increasingly challenging for teachers with less experience teaching online \(({\tau }_{c}=-0.18{;p}\, < \,0.001)\) , and those with poor digital skills \(({\tau }_{c}=-0.11{;p}\, < \,0.001)\) .

Equitable opportunities to access education

Multiple items throughout the survey assessed to what extent learning opportunities were offered to students and their ability to benefit from them (Table 2 ). More than 96% of participants agreed that most to all students in their classroom had access to the resources needed for online classes. The distribution of responses was slightly different between countries ( X 2  = 17.82, p  < 0.001, df  = 3, Cramer ′ sV  = 0.15). But overall, even for teachers that had low-income students, reporting that few or none of their students had access to technology was rare.

Despite having the means to access online education, more than 65% of participants indicated that attendance to class decreased during the 2020–2021 school year. Overall, there was no significant difference in teachers’ reports of attendance across countries ( X 2  = 2.97, p  < 0.227, df  = 2, Cramer ′ sV  = 0.07). However, there was a difference in the association between attendance levels and students’ income across countries. For teachers in the US, lower levels of attendance were reported more frequently when students came from low-income households \(({\tau }_{c}=-0.19{;p}\, < \,0.001)\) . For Canadian teachers, this association was not present \(({\tau }_{c}=-0.03{;p}\, < \,0.517)\) .

Knowing the limitations of this survey in terms of providing individual data about attendance, we included one additional question to explore approximately what proportion of students were missing from the classroom. We asked respondents to break down their students into three different groups: students who attended regularly, students who attended irregularly and students who were completely absent from class throughout the whole year. According to teachers’ estimations, an average of 69.98% of students were present regularly in class, 21.24% came to class only irregularly and another 8.78% were completely absent during the whole school year. The proportion of students completely absent was consistently low for all SES levels \((F(4,611)=0.46,{p}=0.764,{\eta }^{2}=0.01)\) . In contrast, the number of students attending regularly increased linearly with SES levels \((F(4,611)=2.41,{p}=0.048,{\eta }^{2}=0.02{;linear\; trend}:t=2.12,{SE}=3.16,{p}=0.034)\) . Since these proportions are complementary, the proportion of students attending irregularly also decreased across SES levels \((F(4,611)=3.34,{p}=0.010,{\eta }^{2}=0.02{;linear\; trend}:t=-2.52,{SE}=2.28,{p}=0.012)\) .

During class, most participants indicated that they covered less content during online lessons than they do in a regular school year. Moreover, around 28% of participants considered that adult assistance was needed for students to complete schoolwork. Whether the support from a parent or caregiver was imperative or not, we also asked participants to estimate, approximately, what proportion of their students received help at home. More than 70% of participants perceived that most to all students in their class had the support of an adult to some degree. But more importantly, perceived levels of support were higher for teachers of students coming from higher-income households \(({\tau }_{c}=-0.25{;p}\, < \,0.001)\) .

Changes in academic performance during the pandemic

Another important goal of our survey was to get teachers’ input on how different aspects of academic achievement may have been affected because of the interruption of in-person classes (Table 3 ). More than 50% of teachers indicated that children in their class performed worse than in previous years (Fig. 1a ). Moreover, teachers who reported having students from lower socio-economic status were more likely to report that performance was below the expectations for the grade (Fig. 1b ; \({\tau }_{c}=-0.25{;p}\, < \,0.001\) ). There were no differences across countries in these estimations of students’ average performance ( X 2  = 2.97, p  < 0.227, df  = 2, Cramer ′ sV  = 0.07).

Teachers’ perceptions of the overall performance of students, compared to a regular school year ( a ) by country and ( b ) by classroom SES. Legend: - On average, students have performed below the expectations for their grade = On average, students have performed according to the expectations for their grade + On average, students have performed above the expectations for their grade.

Previous reports have suggested that learning losses during the pandemic have not been equally severe across different learning domains 11 . Motivated by those results, we asked participants to rate students’ performance in Math, Reading/Literature, and Spelling/Writing, separately. The distribution of responses for the three domains was slightly skewed, as most teachers reported learning losses to some degree for the three areas. We wanted to know if teachers’ perceptions of academic loss for specific domains varied depending on the subject they teach. Unfortunately, around 60% of our participants did not report that information. Moreover, out of the 40% who reported the subjects they were teaching, more than half of them taught multiple subjects that covered the three topics of interest. Nonetheless, we ran an exploratory analysis including just that 40% and we did not observe significant effects. (i.e. participants who teach math-related areas do not report better or worse learning losses in math when compared to other participants).

To complement these overall ratings, we requested more detailed information about the distribution of students in their classrooms, according to their performance level. Participants were asked to classify their students into three categories: students who performed below the expectations for their grade, students who performed according to the expectations for their grade, and students who performed above the expectations for their grade. Even though our data cannot inform about individual differences in performance, with this question we expected to obtain an estimate of the proportion of students who experienced the learning losses reported in the previous questions.

Comparing the data across the three domains did not yield significant differences in the severity of learning losses that teachers report for Math, Reading, or Spelling (Fig. 2 ). However, we did find differences across countries in the proportions of low, average, or high-performance students that teachers reported across all domains. Canadian teachers reported lower percentages than their US counterparts of students performing below standards during the 2020–21 school year \((F(1,904)=7.23,{p}=0.007,{\eta }^{2}=0.01)\) . They also reported higher proportions of students performing above standards for their grades despite the pandemic \((F(1,905)=37.54,{p}\, < \,0.001,{\eta }^{2}=0.03)\) . In summary, even though teachers of both countries reported an overall decrease in students’ performance, teachers from the US report having a higher percentage of students experiencing these losses.

Average performance of students compared to a regular school year in ( a ) Math, ( b ) Reading/Literature, and ( c ) Spelling/Writing. Legend: -- Much worse- Somewhat worse = About the same + Somewhat better + + Much better.

Participants were also asked to estimate whether the gap between the students performing at the higher level, and those performing at the lowest level had increased, decreased, or stayed the same, compared to a typical school year. This question was designed to elicit teachers’ views of individual differences between students in their classrooms. About 58% of teachers indicated that differences between students had widened during the 2020–2021 school year, in contrast to around 32% who didn’t perceive any changes and another 10% who indicated that this gap decreased. Finally, we included one general question in the survey to ask teachers if they believed that the pandemic would have long lasting effects on students and, if so, whether these effects would have a positive or negative outcome. A large proportion of the participants expressed that the changes occurring during the pandemic would most likely have a negative impact on students’ learning in the long run.

We distributed a survey to primary school teachers in the US and Canada at the end of the 2020–2021 school year. Our survey was able to reach teachers from different levels of SES, who were affected by school closure at varying degrees. Their responses provided relevant insights into how education took place during the COVID-19 health crisis, especially during the 2020–2021 school year, the first to fully occur within the pandemic.

Results from our survey suggest that a large proportion of students in both countries had access to the digital resources required to access these online alternatives (such as computers, internet, etc.). This was especially true for students from advantaged homes, but even in the lower SES levels, more than 90% of students had access to digital resources. This is not surprising, considering recent statistics showing that around 93% and 88% of students in Canada and the US, respectively, have access to a computer at home and more than 95% have access to the internet in both countries 7 , 32 .

However, the availability of digital resources is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee that students have access to educational opportunities. For example, our data indicates that the amount of instruction time decreased substantially, compared to a regular school year. Instruction time requirements for primary school in both Canada 43 and the US 44 vary across states, but the average is close to 30 h per week. The average number of hours of remote instruction reported by our participants fell below the 20 h, which represents less than two thirds of these typical requirements. Consistently, most participants reported not being able to deliver all the content they typically taught during a regular school year. In addition, most participants indicated that attendance to class was lower than in a traditional year. Was this trend due to just a few, or to many students consistently missing class? On average, our respondents report that approximately 3 in every 10 students in their class were attending inconsistently or completely absent. Although small, the reported proportions of students who were completely absent from class are of critical importance, since they represent students who were not able to benefit from education opportunities at all during the last school year.

Overall, nearly 56% of our participants agreed that students performed below the expectations for their grades during the 2020–2021 school year. These reports are converging with previous studies using standardized tests to compare students’ academic achievement before and during the pandemic (Engzell et al., 2020; Kuhfeld et al., 2020). Unlike previous studies, teachers’ rates of academic performance obtained during our survey do not suggest that the drop in math performance was more pronounced than in other domains (i.e., reading). It is possible that differences between learning losses experienced across domains exist in our student population, as suggested by studies analyzing individual data on standardized tests. However, those differences may not be large enough to be captured by the limited response options presented in our survey. It is also possible that presenting this question in a grid format may have increased the probability of straight-lining, or the tendency in which participants select the same answer choice to all items on the question.

More importantly, teachers’ rates of academic performance varied drastically according to the income-level of their students, and more than half of our participants agreed that differences between low and high performing students became more pronounced during the 2020–2021 school year. This learning gap between low and high performing students is fundamentally different from the overall performance trend. Assuming that teachers’ ratings are an accurate depiction of how actual performance was impacted by the school closures, the questions about overall performance should reflect perceived changes on the mean of the distribution, whereas the questions about the learning gap should reflect perceived changes on the difference between the lower and the upper tail of the distribution within their classrooms.

Like previous studies in the literature, our findings suggest that the pandemic has emphasized individual differences between students of different income levels, that are otherwise attenuated during in-person instruction. Figure 3 highlights the most noticeable differences between the lower and the top 20% of the SES distribution. The consistent pattern of interaction between teachers’ reports of the effects of the pandemic and their students’ socio-economic background suggests that students from low- and high-income households may have experienced school closures in very different ways.

We created two groups to represent the extremes of the SES distribution. To make the groups comparable in terms of size, the lower SES group included participants who reported that their students come from predominantly Low-Income households ( n  = 168), whereas the higher SES group included participants whose students predominantly come from High-Income households ( n  = 53), or a mix of Middle and High-Income ( n  = 119). Since our perceived SES measure is on a discrete scale, selecting exactly the top and bottom 20% is not possible. Instead, the lower and higher income groups represent 18.44% and 18.88% of the distribution.

First, our data suggest that teachers from classrooms with higher income levels may have been more prepared for the transition to remote alternatives, as they had more relevant experience with online instruction before the pandemic and they had better self-ratings of digital skills than teachers from lower SES classrooms. For example, 7 out of every 10 teachers of students in the lower 20% of the SES were teaching online for the first time during the pandemic, versus only 4 out of every 10 in the top 20% SES.

During the school closures, teachers from higher SES classrooms were also less likely to report a drop in overall attendance levels to online lessons, compared to a regular school year, and had higher proportions of students who consistently attended class. Moreover, they observed students receiving support from adults at home more frequently. This was one of the most striking contrasts observed in our data, which became more evident when comparing the two extremes of the distribution. Taken together, these results suggest that students in higher income levels may have been in a better position to benefit from the remote alternatives offered during the pandemic. Consistent with this prediction, teachers from higher income classrooms were also less likely to report learning losses during the pandemic.

These results have critical implications for our understanding of the long-term effect of the pandemic. Household income was already an important predictor of future academic achievement before the pandemic. With the closure of schools as a measure to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus, children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds who were already in a vulnerable position may find themselves falling further behind their peers. As a result, they may be more likely to experience dropout in the future and less likely to pursue higher levels of education, which may reinforce the already existing income inequalities into future generations.

There are limitations to our results due to the observational nature of the data. It is possible that some of the associations observed are the results of biases in teachers’ perceptions. In addition, it is important to bear in mind that teacher reports offer information that occurs at the classroom level and therefore cannot account for effects at the individual level.

Despite these limitations, teachers can provide insights into the effects that the pandemic has had on students that is unique and highly valuable. Teachers have been active observers of students’ performance before, during, and after the pandemic. They receive a constant stream of data from students and therefore may perceive trends that standardized tests taken at a single time point may not capture.

In addition, teachers can provide information that is representative of a wide range of socio-economic and classroom contexts, something that has been a limitation of previous analyses of individual data. Our survey has its own limitations when describing the effects of SES on learning during the pandemic. For instance, we cannot guarantee that the SES levels reported by teachers in the US will correspond perfectly with the same levels in Canada. In other words, what teachers consider low SES in one country may be considered middle SES in the other. But even if the levels do not overlap perfectly, what seems to be consistent across our data is that students in lower levels struggled more during the pandemic and that trend remains when analyses are conducted on each country separately.

Critically, the relevance of teacher surveys is not only limited to their role as informants of students’ achievement. Teachers have a critical role in carrying forward education efforts and understanding how they experienced the recent crisis is by itself a critical question that current research should address. The stress associated with abrupt changes in the work environment, combined with the high demands and responsibility levels puts teachers at risk of experiencing work-related burnout. In fact, previous studies have found that, during 2020, teachers were more likely to consider leaving the classroom before retirement age 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 , and at least 23% considered retiring specifically due to the pandemic 48 , which has aggravated the already existing global crisis of teacher shortages 42 . In our survey, as expected, the frequency of teachers considering leaving their profession was higher for those with more years of experience. However, even in the group of less experienced teachers, around 1 in every 4 considered retiring during the pandemic. Teachers are expected to continue to have a critical role as the pandemic continues to unfold and in future efforts to mitigate the learning losses experienced by students during this period. It is evident from these results that understanding teachers’ experiences and providing them with the necessary resources and support will be critical for the success of these efforts.

In summary, our results provide an insight into how teachers from these countries experienced remote education, and their observations about consequences for students’ academic achievement, measured right at the end of the first school year to fully occur amidst the pandemic. Our sample was diverse in terms of the geographical distribution of responses and the socio-economic background of the students. Nevertheless, our results may be specific to the higher-level socio-economic characteristics of these countries and may not be generalizable to different contexts. Our results suggest that even in the presence of widespread access to digital learning tools, consistent attendance to class and complete delivery of the curriculum could not be guaranteed. Most teachers reported observing a decline in students’ academic performance, and a growth in the gaps between low and high performing students. More importantly, our data suggest that the effects of the pandemic were not equally distributed. Students from lower SES levels had teachers who were less prepared for the transition to online activities and received less support from adults during homeschooling. Consistently, teachers from lower SES classrooms also reported drops in performance more frequently than those from the higher SES levels.

Even though the group estimations that teachers provide at the classroom level are not enough to suggest causal relationships between the variables we studied and individual differences in academic achievement, teachers contribute valuable information, based on their constant interaction with students. Their observations provide a unique perspective on the effects of the pandemic that is relevant to inform policy decisions and future research.

Participants

Teachers from public elementary schools were recruited through the Qualtrics Online Sample panel. We aimed at a sample size of 900 participants, 450 from Canada and 450 from the US. Our sample size was constrained by the availability of participants from the Qualtrics panel that fit into our inclusion criteria. We required participants to be elementary school teachers (grades 1 to 6), fluent in English, living in Canada or the US, who were actively teaching during the 2020–2021 school year. We surveyed 918 participants between June 16th and June 28th, 2021. Seven participants were removed for having a large number of missing responses. The final sample included 911 participants, 453 from Canada and 458 from the US (Fig. 4 ). The complete dataset can be accessed here: https://osf.io/3dsef .

Distribution of responses collected across Canada and the US 49 The circle size represents the amount of participants recruited, transformed to log scale.

Our sample was diverse in terms of the professional background of participants and the socioeconomic characteristics of their students (see Table 4 ). We did not consider participants’ socioeconomic status (SES) when determining inclusion. In fact, we were not able to select participants across specific SES levels since the Qualtrics Online Sample of teachers was already limited. Rather, we recruited all potential participants and subsequently described the income level of the students they teach, as reported by the participants themselves.

There were small differences between participants of both countries. For example, teachers from the US were on average more experienced than their Canadian counterparts ( X Can  = 10.05 years, X USA  = 11.82 years; t (822.63) = −2.14, p  = 0.033, d  = 0.14) and reported having students from lower-income households to a greater extent ( X 2  = 71.44, p  = 0.000, df  = 4, Cramer ′ sV  = 0.20).

More than 90% of teachers in our sample experienced school closures during the pandemic, ranging from a few days to the whole year (Table 5 ). Partial closures were, on average, larger in Canada compared to the US ( t (409.40) = 3.32, p  = 0.001, d  = 0.33). During remote instruction, participants reported spending around 18.87 h of class time per week. Furthermore, most participants received classwork from students on a weekly or daily basis and provided feedback with similar frequency. These survey items offered an estimate of the amount of information that participants received from students, which will serve as a basis for their judgments about academic performance.

Since most of the observed discrepancies between countries corresponded to small effect sizes, we considered both groups of participants to be comparable. Therefore, we report here the results corresponding to the whole sample.

The study was approved by the Non-medical Research Ethics Board of the University of Western Ontario. We administered the survey through the Qualtrics online platform. All the participants on the Qualtrics panel who potentially met our inclusion criteria received an email with a link to the survey and the estimated time commitment. Participants who accessed the link were presented with the letter of information (LOI) before starting the survey. Since the survey was administered online, participants could not provide written consent. Instead, they indicated agreement to participate by ticking a checkbox at the end of the LOI. The survey was presented only to those participants who provided this type of consent.

We asked participants to complete the survey in a single session, which should have taken approximately 10 min. To minimize the risk of missing data, we required responses for most survey items. However, all the questions with response requirements included an ‘I prefer not to answer’ option that participants could use if they didn’t feel comfortable disclosing the required information. The complete survey is available here: https://osf.io/bx63k/ .

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/3dsef .

UNESCO. Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse#schoolclosures (2020).

UNICEF. COVID-19 and School Closures: One Year of Education Disruption . (2021).

United Nations. Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. Policy Brief (2020).

World Bank Group. The COVID-19 pandemic: shocks to education and policy responses. Education vol. 29 (2020).

Bansak, C. & Starr, M. Covid-19 shocks to education supply: how 200,000 U.S. households dealt with the sudden shift to distance learning. Rev. Econ. House. 19 , 63–90 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Engzell, P., Frey, A. & Verhagen, M. D. Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 , e2022376118 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

OECD. Learning remotely when schools close: How well are students and schools prepared? Insights from PISA . (2020).

Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M. & Engzell, P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning . (2022).

Moscoviz, L. & Evans, D. K. Learning loss and student dropouts during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a review of the evidence two years after schools shut down abstract. Center for Global Development www.cgdev.org (2022).

Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A. & Moser, U. 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. Int. J. Psychol. 56 , 566–576 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kuhfeld, M., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E. & Lewis, K. Learning during COVID-19: initial findings on students’ reading and math achievement and growth. Collaborative for student growth (2020).

Domingue, B. W., Hough, H. J., Lang, D., Yeatman, J. & Christian, M. S. Changing patterns of growth in oral reading fluency during the COVID-19 pandemic . (2021).

Maldonado, J. E. & de Witte, K. The effect of school closures on standardised student test outcomes. Br. Educ. Res. J. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3754 .

Domingue, B. W. et al. The effect of COVID on oral reading fluency during the 2020–2021 academic year. AERA Open 8 , 233285842211202 (2022).

Pier, L., Hough, H. J., Christian, M. & Bookman, N. COVID-19 and the Educational Equity Crisis | Policy Analysis for California Education . https://edpolicyinca.org/newsroom/covid-19-and-educational-equity-crisis (2021).

Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J. & Viruleg, E. COVID-19 and learning loss-disparities grow and students need help . (2020).

Contini, D., di Tommaso, M. L., Muratori, C., Piazzalunga, D. & Schiavon, L. The COVID-19 pandemic and school closure: learning loss in mathematics in primary education . (2021).

Schult, J., Mahler, N., Fauth, B. & Lindner, M. A. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Did students learn less during the COVID-19 pandemic? Reading and mathematics competencies before and after the first pandemic wave. (2022) https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2061014 .

Renaissance Learning. How kids are performing tracking the impact of COVID-19 on reading and mathematics achievement . www.renaissance.com (2020).

Ardington, C., Wills, G. & Kotze, J. COVID-19 learning losses: early grade reading in South Africa. Int J. Educ. Dev. 86 , 102480 (2021).

Hevia, F. J., Vergara-Lope, S., Velásquez-Durán, A. & Calderón, D. Estimation of the fundamental learning loss and learning poverty related to COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Int J. Educ. Dev. 88 , 102515 (2022).

Gambi, L. & De Witte, K. The resiliency of school outcomes after the COVID-19 pandemic. Standardised test scores and inequality one year after long term school closures. FEB Research Report Department of Economics (2021).

Spitzer, M. W. H. & Musslick, S. Academic performance of K-12 students in an online-learning environment for mathematics increased during the shutdown of schools in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 16 , e0255629 (2021).

Gore, J., Fray, L., Miller, A., Harris, J. & Taggart, W. The impact of COVID-19 on student learning in New South Wales primary schools: an empirical study. Aust. Educ. Res 48 , 605–637 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hallin, A. E., Danielsson, H., Nordström, T. & Fälth, L. No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic: evidence from primary school reading assessments. Int J. Educ. Res 114 , 102011 (2022).

UNESCO Institute of Statistics. COVID-19 in Sub-Saharan Africa: monitoring impacts on learning outcomes . http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en (2022).

Kuhfeld, M., Condron, D. J. & Downey, D. B. When does inequality grow? A seasonal analysis of racial/ethnic disparities in learning from kindergarten through eighth grade. Educ. Res. 50 , 225–238 (2021).

García, E. & Weiss, E. Education inequalities at the school starting gate. Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them . (2017).

Parolin, Z. & Lee, E. K. Large socio-economic, geographic and demographic disparities exist in exposure to school closures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021 5:4 5 , 522–528 (2021).

OECD. Students access to a computer at home. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/data-insights/student-access-to-a-computer-at-home (2020).

Frenette, M., Frank, K. & Deng, Z. School Closures and the Online Preparedness of Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic . www.statcan.gc.ca (2020).

Irwin, V. et al. Report on the Condition of Education. 2021 . (2021).

Pensiero, N., Kelly, T. & Bokhove, C. Learning inequalities during the Covid-19 pandemic: how families cope with home-schooling. University of Southampton research report . (2020) https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/P0025 .

Lewis, K. & Kuhfeld, M. Learning during COVID-19 : An update on student achievement and growth at the start of the 2021–22 school year . (2021).

Haelermans, C. et al. A full year COVID-19 crisis with interrupted learning and two school closures: the effects on learning growth and inequality in primary education. ROA Research Memorandum (2021) https://doi.org/10.26481/UMAROR.2021009 .

Lewis, K., Kuhfeld, M., Ruzek, E. & McEachin, A. Learning during COVID-19: Reading and Math achievement in the 2020–21 school year . https://content.acsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Learning-During-COVID-19-Reading-and-Math-NWEA-Brief.pdf (2021).

Silva, R. R. V. et al. COVID-19 pandemic: dissatisfaction with work among teachers in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 26 , 6117–6128 (2021).

Alves, R., Lopes, T. & Precioso, J. Teachers’ well-being in times of Covid-19 pandemic: factors that explain professional well-being. IJERI: Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 203–217 (2020) https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5120 .

Gillani, A. et al. Teachers’ dissatisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: factors contributing to a desire to leave the profession. (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940718 .

Aperribai, L., Cortabarria, L., Aguirre, T., Verche, E. & Borges, Á. Teacher’s physical activity and mental health during lockdown due to the COVID-2019 pandemic. Front Psychol. 11 , 2673 (2020).

Kraft, M. A., Simon, N. S. & Lyon, M. A. Sustaining a sense of success: the protective role of teacher working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Res Educ. Eff. 14 , 727–769 (2021).

Google Scholar  

UNESCO. Transforming education from within. (2022).

Statistics Canada. Education Indicators in Canada: An International Perspective 2017 . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-604-x/2017001/ch/chd-eng.htm (2017).

National Center for Education Statistics. State Education Practices (SEP) . (2020).

Bacher-Hicks, A., Chi, O. L. & Orellana, A. Two years later: how COVID-19 has shaped the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher (2023) https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231153659 .

Hoang, A.-D. Pandemic and teacher retention: empirical evidence from expat teachers in Southeast Asia during COVID-19. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 40 , 1141–1166 (2020).

Gunn, T. M., McRae, P. A. & Edge-Partington, M. Factors that influence beginning teacher retention during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from one Canadian province. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 4 , 100233 (2023).

Zamarro, G. & Camp, A. Understanding how COVID-19 has Changed Teachers ’ Chances of Remaining in the Classroom Research Brief Understanding how COVID- 19 has Changed Teachers ’ Chances of Remaining in the Classroom . (2021).

Plotly Technologies Inc. Collaborative data science. Montréal, QC . https://plot.ly . (2015)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the educators who offered their valuable time to respond to our survey. We would also like to thank Bea Goffin for assistance with research ethics and project management. This project was supported by a Catalyst Grant from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR, Grant Reference CF-0213) to CLO and DA. Danial Ansari is supported by the Jacobs Foundation through the CERES Network.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

Aymee Alvarez-Rivero & Daniel Ansari

Department of Psychological Science, University of California -Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

Candice Odgers

Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design by all authors. Initial survey draft by A.A.R, but all authors reviewed and provided feedback that was incorporated to the final version. Data analysis and initial draft of the manuscript by A.A.R but all authors contributed and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aymee Alvarez-Rivero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alvarez-Rivero, A., Odgers, C. & Ansari, D. Elementary school teachers’ perspectives about learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. npj Sci. Learn. 8 , 40 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00191-w

Download citation

Received : 01 December 2022

Accepted : 04 September 2023

Published : 18 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00191-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on elementary school teachers’ practices and perceptions across the spring and fall 2020 semesters.

• 1 Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
• 2 Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States

Following the closure of schools in the spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed two surveys to understand how the pandemic affected elementary education in the U.S. First, we distributed a survey at the end of the spring 2020 semester to understand how school closures impacted delivery of instruction. Second, we conducted a follow up survey in November 2020 to determine the nature of instruction provided to students when schools did or did not re-open in Fall 2020 and understand teachers’ perceptions of student learning and achievement during the pandemic. Each survey was sent to a sample of over 9,000 teachers who were randomly selected to be representative of the population of the U.S. Results indicated that many students did not receive direct instruction in academic skills during the spring 2020 semester. Although by late fall 2020 teachers reported broad use of some form of in-person instructional model, teachers indicated that many of their students were not ready to transition to the next grade level and that achievement gaps were larger in fall 2020 than in typical years. These findings have important implications for practices during potential school closures in the future.

1 Introduction

The current COVID-19 crisis has presented unique challenges to education professionals across the U.S. for identifying optimal strategies to promote student achievement. It is well-documented that school attendance is associated with achievement ( Morrissey et al., 2014 ), and periods of time during which students do not attend school (e.g., summer) result in minimal progress or declines in achievement. Such declines are often greater for children from vulnerable groups, such as students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from low-income backgrounds ( Quinn and Polikoff, 2017 ). In the current crisis, state departments of education and school districts temporarily closed schools in spring 2020 and some districts made substantial modifications to the 2020–2021 school year, such as in-person/remote hybrid instruction or 100% remote instruction ( Hobbs, 2020 ).

Projections of how such closures and changes in delivery of instruction would impact student achievement suggested that students would have significantly lower reading and mathematics abilities when beginning the fall 2020 academic year compared with previous years, ( Kuhfeld et al., 2020 ). In addition to having lower overall achievement in mathematics and reading at the beginning of fall 2020, Kuhfeld et al. reported that students would demonstrate greater variability in reading achievement at the beginning of fall 2020. This means that, in addition to addressing the monumental task of helping students catch up to where they would be at the beginning of a typical school year, teachers may have to differentiate instruction more than they typically would, as students in their classroom would have a wider range of abilities. Moreover, Kuhfeld et al. reported that loss of progress or declines in achievement related to spring 2020 school closures would not be universal. Rather, in a model that addressed the likely scenario that students from high socioeconomic status (SES) schools would receive more remote instruction than would students from low SES schools, SES-based achievement gaps in mathematics and reading were projected to be larger at the beginning of fall 2020 than they would be in a typical school year.

Data supporting some of the projections made by Kuhfeld et al. are beginning to emerge. For example, one report of Fairfax County Public Schools (one of the largest school districts in the U.S.) that was published in the Washington Post indicated that students are failing classes at a higher rate than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Natanson, 2020 ). The report highlights similar patterns of failure rates in other large school districts across the country, and even larger increases in failure rates among students with disabilities and English language learners. Students with disabilities in U.S. schools who receive special education services [i.e., have an individualized education plan (IEP)] and students who are non-native English speakers and have limited English proficiency (i.e., English language learners) may be at risk of experiencing greater impacts of school closures. These students often receive small-group or individualized instruction and may have less access to those services during the pandemic. Moreover, there may be barriers to communication for students with disabilities or students with limited English proficiency that hinder their access to remote instruction.

In addition to evidence of larger impacts of the pandemic for special populations, data are consistent with the notion that students from higher SES schools would likely receive more remote instruction than would students from lower SES schools. Specifically, one national survey reported that 97% of children in households with annual incomes over $75,000 have regular internet access, whereas only 84% of children in households with annual incomes less than $25,000 have regular internet access ( University of Southern California, 2020 ). Evidence also suggests that districts who serve larger numbers of students of color were slower to establish procedures for providing remote instruction, highlighting and potentially magnifying opportunity gaps for students from minoritized backgrounds ( Preciado et al., 2020 ). Such opportunity gaps also exist along geographic lines, as the opportunity gap between rural and urban students in access to live instruction is even larger than the gap for SES ( Gross and Opalka, 2020 ). Even in countries with relatively short lockdown periods, remote instruction resulted in minimal progress, and students from marginalized backgrounds were impacted the most by school closures ( Engzell et al., 2021 ). Taken together, emerging data on how COVID-19 results in opportunity gaps highlights a critical need to document how teachers’ specific practices for delivering instruction have changed, as well as how teachers perceive the effectiveness of those instructional practices for promoting student achievement.

Some research has been published examining teachers’ perspectives on the impact of the pandemic on instructional practices and student achievement. For example, Education Week ( EdWeek Research Center, 2020 ) provides an ongoing survey tracker to monitor how K-12 educators are responding to COVID-19 that is updated every 2 weeks. Results of this survey indicated that in spring 2020, more than 75% of students had lower engagement levels in remote instruction compared to in-person instruction, and approximately 20% of students were “essentially truant.” Other surveys of teachers have corroborated concerns regarding student engagement in remote instruction, as well as other concerns such as lack of access to appropriate technology needed for remote instruction (Educators for Educators for Excellence, 2020 ). Moreover, teachers have expressed concerns with lack of ability to hold students accountable, as many students were not required to complete work, and often feedback was not provided on completed work ( Hamilton et al., 2020 ). Teachers have also reported feeling unprepared to teach online when schools unexpectedly moved to remote instruction in spring 2020 ( Marshall et al., 2020 ).

Addressing complex issues such as large learning losses that occurred when schools closed early in spring 2020, potential greater need for individualized instruction, and navigating novel learning environments (e.g., hybrid classrooms, remote instruction) represents a monumental challenge for teachers. Therefore, more research is needed to characterize how teachers’ academic instruction has changed because of the pandemic, how these changes differentially impact students from diverse or minoritized backgrounds, and what practices teachers believe are effective for maximizing student learning in a remote learning environment. Although another pandemic of this scale is unlikely to occur soon, understanding how to best deliver remote or hybrid instruction has important implications for continuing to promote student learning in other times of crisis (e.g., natural disasters).

To understand and describe how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected delivery of instruction, we conducted two surveys of elementary school teachers across the U.S. The purpose of the first survey was to examine the academic instructional opportunities (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics) provided to elementary school students during school closures in the spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions centered on instructional opportunities provided by schools, student participation and access, feedback and evaluation, and teacher beliefs about instructional effectiveness and student readiness. The purpose of the second survey was to understand the nature of instruction provided and teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness of instruction and student achievement during the fall 2020 semester when schools re-opened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions focused on the instructional models used, teacher perceptions of preparedness for and effectiveness of remote instruction, specific practices used for academic skill instruction, and parent involvement for in-person and remote learners.

We asked the following research questions

1 What was the nature of remote instruction in the spring 2020 semester? How did remote instruction change from spring 2020 to fall 2020?

2 How were the needs of students in special education and English language learners addressed?

3 Are characteristics of schools (e.g., rural vs. urban) and students (e.g., SES) associated with teacher responses to questions about students’ access to instructional opportunities?

4 What differences did teachers observe between students entering their classes in the fall 2020 semester when compared with prior cohorts of students?

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 participants.

This research project was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. We obtained a representative random sample of educator email addresses for survey distribution from Market Data Retrieval, a company focused exclusively on data services related to education. The company collects demographic information for elementary school teachers in public and private schools across the U.S. There were 857,148 teachers in the MDR database in April 2020. We requested a random sample of e-mail addresses that was proportionally reflective of the number of teachers in each grade (K-5), as well as representative of the distribution of the U.S. population across different geographic regions: Pacific, Mountain, North Central, South Central, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England.

Using the margin of error formula proposed by Dillman (2000) , we determined we would need approximately 384 respondents to achieve a margin of error of 3.5%, with a 95% confidence interval, assuming an expected 50/50 split in the proportion of participants answering yes or no to a particular question. According to Dillman (2000) , a 50/50 split represents maximum heterogeneity of a sample. Market Data Retrieval provided us with a random sample of teacher 9,468 email addresses. E-mail addresses for 364 teachers were invalid, resulting in a final total of 9,104 teachers who may have received the invitation to complete both surveys.

For the first survey, 428 teachers began the survey, and 390 teachers completed the last question on the survey. For the second survey, 340 teachers began the survey, and 285 teachers completed the last question on the survey. This was a lower than anticipated response rate (4.7% and 3.7% response for the first and second survey, respectively). To evaluate how this impacted the generalizability of our findings, we compared teachers who did and did not respond to the survey, as well as comparing our sample to national data on teacher demographics reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; Hussar et al., 2020 ). These comparisons are reported in Tables 1 and 2 . When comparing responders and non-responders, after correcting for Type I error rate, there were some statistically significant differences by geographic region for both Surveys 1 and 2. The only other statistically significant difference was that teachers from medium-high SES schools were over-represented in Survey 1. Given that teachers who did and did not respond to the survey were similar with respect to school setting, school type, SES, and grade level taught, we believe that despite the low response rates our results are generalizable to the broader population of elementary school teachers in the MDR database. When comparing to national averages, our samples over-represented female teachers, white teachers (Survey 2 only), and teachers with over 20 years of teaching experience. Our samples under-represented teachers with less than 3 years of teaching experience, teachers with between 10 and 20 years of experience, and Hispanic/Latinx teachers. We discuss the implications of our low response rate and generalizability of the results in the Limitations. Demographics of participating teachers’ classrooms are reported in Table 3 .

TABLE 1 . Demographic percentages for responders and non-responders.

TABLE 2 . Demographic percentages for teachers in surveys 1 and 2 and national averages.

TABLE 3 . Classroom demographics for teachers completing survey 1 and survey 2.

2.2 Survey Questions

We asked similar types of questions across both surveys ( Table 4 for a comparison of the categories of questions asked). We elaborate on the questions for each survey in the following subsections.

TABLE 4 . Survey 1 and survey 2 questions.

2.2.1 Survey 1

Survey 1 first included questions related to demographics of the teachers and students in their classrooms, such as questions about the number of students in their classrooms, student eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, ethnicity, special education status, and English language learner status. Additionally, Survey 1 included 20 questions about teachers’ experience with remote instruction, including questions about whether and how often they provided remote instructional opportunities for students, as well as students’ participation and engagement in those remote learning experiences. We also asked questions related to instruction in reading, mathematics, and writing. Our questions distinguished between academic instruction provided by teachers and academic activities assigned for students to complete without instruction. Finally, we asked questions about students receiving special education or English learner services in their classrooms, including questions about the number of students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), whether instruction was provided only in English, the percent of non-English instruction (if any), and the accommodations and modifications made for students with disabilities and English language learners.

2.2.2 Survey 2

Survey 2 was structured similarly to Survey 1, in that it began with questions about demographics of teachers and the students in their classrooms. Then, teachers were asked questions about the instructional model that their school used for the fall 2020 semester, including whether this model has changed since the beginning of the school year. Teachers also were asked questions about remote instruction, if they indicated remote instruction was part of their school’s instructional model. These questions included information about student engagement in remote instruction, frequency and nature of remote instruction, assignments and grading for remote instruction, and preparedness for and effectiveness of delivery of remote instruction. The questions then shifted to a focus on specific academic skills, including questions about reading, writing, and mathematics instruction. These questions focused on the frequency and nature of academic skills instruction, whether students were screened on academic skills at the beginning of the school year, supplemental intervention for academic skills, and achievement gaps in academic skills. Teachers were asked specific questions regarding achievement gaps and supplemental intervention for academic skills relative to previous cohorts of students. Teachers answered open-ended questions that asked about their opinions on instructional practices most effective for improving academic skills for remote learners and students who may have fallen behind due to the pandemic. Teachers then answered questions about special populations in their classroom, including students with disabilities and English language learners. Teachers were asked about inclusive practices, accommodations and modifications, and opportunity gaps for special populations.

2.3 Survey Design

Survey 1 included a traditional approach to survey design, in which all participants were asked to complete all survey items. However, because of the large number of questions included in Survey 2, we implemented a planned missing data design. This approach minimizes the number of survey questions an individual participant responds to, cutting down on the overall time it takes each participant to complete the survey. We used a 10-form planned missing design. For this type of design, 10 separate forms of the survey were created, with each form having a different pattern of missing questions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the 10 forms of the survey. Therefore, because the data for individual questions were missing due to random assignment to survey form, they were missing completely at random and standard procedures for handling missing data were employed. One set of questions was designated as the “X” set of questions that all participants received, regardless of the form to which they were assigned. The X set of questions was made up of the questions deemed to be most important for the survey ( Little and Rhemtulla, 2013 ). The X set included the block on teacher and student demographics, as well as the questions about the school’s instructional model for the fall 2020 semester, a question about whether teachers believed their students had skills needed to transition into their new grade level, and a question about whether teachers were spending more time reviewing material in the fall of 2020. For example, in one of the planned missing forms, participants received the X set of questions, as well as questions about reading and writing instruction, but not questions about math instruction, special populations, or parent involvement.

2.4 Missing Data

All missing data attributable to the planned missing design in Survey 2 were imputed using multiple imputation. For both Surveys 1 and 2, some teachers began but did not complete the survey. We compared teachers who did and did not complete the survey on key variables to determine whether the data were missing at random. We first conducted chi-square tests based on data provided by MDR [geographic region, school type (rural, urban, suburban), public vs. private schools, grade level taught, and SES]. Results indicated some significant differences in geographic region across teachers who did and did not complete the survey (e.g., for Survey 2, teachers who completed the survey were more likely to come from the north central region of the U.S. than were teachers who did not complete the survey); however, no other differences were observed that could plausibly explain differences across teachers who did and did not complete the survey.

We then conducted Little’s test ( Little, 1988 ) to confirm that our planned missing variables were missing completely at random (MCAR). After confirming this, we also used Little’s test to evaluate whether other key variables were also MCAR, including grade level, years of experience, percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunch, percent of students in special education, time spent reviewing material, school’s current instructional model, and change in instructional model; because these data were also determined to be missing completely at random, we used multiple imputation to impute the missing values for teachers who did not complete the survey.

There were also rare instances of missing data for questions that participants skipped and some participant responses were considered invalid (e.g., when describing race/ethnicity of students in their class, one teacher reported that 100% of students were white, 70% of students were black/African-American, 94% of students were Native American, 97% of students were Asian, and 89% of students were Hawaiian; although it is possible there are multiracial students in the class, it is unlikely that such large numbers for all race/ethnicity categories represented valid responses). We conducted Little’s test after dropping invalid responses, and these ethnicity variables were not found to be MCAR. However, such instances of missing data were assumed to be missing at random (e.g., data entry errors, accidentally skipping questions) and were also imputed.

3.1 Survey 1 (Spring 2020)

Teachers completed Survey 1 at the end of the Spring 2020 semester during school closures following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that this was the beginning of the pandemic and the first time many teachers engaged in remote instruction, our research questions for Survey 1 focused on characterizing the nature of remote instruction at that time, including how it varied across student populations and demographics. The following sections are organized based on the types of questions included in Survey 1.

3.1.1 Teacher Responses to Questions About Remote Learning Experiences (Spring 2020)

Data on remote learning experiences indicated that nearly all teachers provided some form of remote instruction ( Table 5 ). Approximately three out of four teachers (76%) were expected to provide remote instruction only for the remainder of the school year, and just under one out of four (23%) teachers were expected to provide remote instruction for the school year and summer. Teachers reported having an average of 25 students in their classroom (M = 25.0, SD = 13.1), and, on average, approximately 72% of students regularly participated in remote instruction.

TABLE 5 . Nature of remote instruction during spring 2020 semester.

Despite the somewhat high percentage of teachers providing remote instruction, only 31% of teachers reported that they believed remote learning experiences were effective at promoting student achievement ( Figure 1 ). Over 80% of teachers held both live meetings with students and provided remote learning experiences that students accessed independently. However, only 33% of teachers reported holding daily live meetings with students, with an additional 39% reporting holding live meetings with students once per week. There was a significant, negative correlation between whether teachers held live meetings and the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (r = −0.19, p < 0.001), indicating that teachers who served larger numbers of students from low-income backgrounds were less likely to hold live meetings with their students. This is consistent with a negative correlation between the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and the teacher-reported percentage of students who have regular internet access (r = −0.41, p < 0.001).

FIGURE 1 . Teacher perceptions of effectiveness of remote instruction in spring 2020.

A much larger percentage of teachers reported providing activities that students could complete independently at home (93%). On average, teachers reported providing 3.1 (SD = 1.9) assignments per day. However, a large proportion of teachers reported that the assignments were not graded (48%).

3.1.2 Teacher Responses to Questions About Academic Skills Instruction (Spring 2020)

Teachers reported that, on average, only three out of five of their students (M = 60.5%; SD = 27.4) were prepared to advance to the next grade level at the time their school closed in spring 2020. Results of multiple regression analyses predicting which students had the skills needed to transition to the next grade level and frequency of academic skills instruction are reported in Table 6 . Multiple regression analysis indicated that greater percentages of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch and special education were associated with smaller percentages of students ready to advance to the next grade level. In contrast, larger percentages of white students in the classroom were associated with larger teacher estimates of the percent of students ready to advance to the next grade level.

TABLE 6 . Standardized regression coefficients for links between classroom demographic composition, percentage of students ready to transition to the next grade level, and frequency of academic skills instruction.

Of the teachers who were providing remote instruction, 67% of teachers reported providing some form of reading instruction daily (i.e., direct instruction in reading skills or independent reading activities). Approximately 25% of teachers provided direct instruction in reading skills daily whereas 25% of teachers reported never providing direct instruction in reading skills. Over 90% of teachers provided independent reading activities for students to complete on their own more than once per week. Multiple regression analyses indicated that teachers who reported having larger numbers of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch and larger numbers of white students also reported providing more direct instruction in reading skills.

This pattern of findings was similar for mathematics, in which 70% of teachers reported providing some form of remote instruction daily. About 28% of teachers reported providing direct instruction in mathematics skills daily whereas 22% of teachers reported never providing direct instruction. In addition, approximately 94% of teachers reported providing independent mathematics activities more than once per week. No classroom demographic variables were significant predictors of teacher reports of frequency of direct instruction in mathematics, although the association between percent of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch and amount of direct instruction in mathematics was positive and marginally significant.

In contrast, fewer teachers (36%) reported providing some form of remote instruction in writing daily. Teachers were also less likely to provide daily direct instruction in writing skills (13%) compared to that of reading and mathematics, whereas the percentage of teachers not providing any direct instruction in writing were comparable (22%) to those in reading and mathematics. Furthermore, 76% of teachers reported providing independent writing activities more than once per week. There was a positive, statistically significant association between percent of white students in the classroom and the amount of direct instruction in writing skills. The association between percent of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch and frequency of writing instruction was positive and marginally significant.

3.1.3 Teacher Responses to Questions About Special Populations (Spring 2020)

Data pertaining to remote instruction for students with disabilities indicated that teachers had an average of three students with an IEP in their classroom (M = 3.8, SD = 3.5). Teachers reported that more than 55% of students with an IEP participated in remote instruction. Approximately 38% of teachers expected students with an IEP to complete the same remote assignments as general education students in their class, whereas 47% of teachers expected students with an IEP to complete the same remote assignments as general education students only sometimes, followed by 16% of teachers not expecting the same remote assignments from students with an IEP. Approximately 77% of teachers provided special accommodations for students with disabilities themselves, and 82% of teachers indicated that other teachers, such as paraprofessionals or resource teachers, provided services to students with disabilities in their class. In addition, 79% of teachers indicated that either they or another teacher (e.g., resource teachers) were holding a small group or one-to-one meeting with students with disabilities to provide individualized supports.

Eighty-five percent of teachers reported having English language learners in their classroom, with an average of 6 English language learners in the classroom (M = 5.7, SD = 7.5). The language spoken by English language learners varied (e.g., Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, French, Arabic, Vietnamese, Russian), but Spanish was predominant. Instruction was provided mostly in English with only 11% of teachers reporting providing instruction in another language. Approximately 43% of teachers indicated providing no instructional accommodations for English language learners during school closures.

3.2 Survey 2 (Fall 2020)

Teachers completed Survey 2 during the Fall 2020 semester, after having some experience providing remote and/or hybrid instruction. Therefore, we expected that teachers would be more prepared for providing remote instruction. Additionally, in the U.S. some teachers provided 100% in-person instruction for at least part of the Fall 2020 semester. Our research questions for Survey 2 focused on how delivery of remote instruction changed from Spring to Fall 2020, as well as whether there were differences in achievement between students entering the Fall 2020 semester and prior cohorts of students. The following sections are organized based on the types of questions teachers responded to for Survey 2.

Although results of Survey 1 indicated that teachers believed approximately 60% of students were ready to transition to the next grade level, teachers who completed Survey 2 reported that, on average, 49.0% of their students were ready to transition to their classroom at the beginning of the fall 2020 semester. This indicates that in spring 2020 teachers may have underestimated the impact of the pandemic on student learning, to some degree. Additionally, 75.3% of teachers reported spending more time reviewing material from the previous grade, compared to typical years.

3.2.1 Teacher Responses to Questions About Instructional Models (Fall 2020)

Teacher data on instructional models is reported in Figure 2 . Although approximately 53% of schools were using an in-person or hybrid instructional model to begin the fall 2020 semester, by November 2020 approximately 68% of teachers reported their schools used an in-person or hybrid instructional model. This represents a positive trend, as many elementary schools that were initially hesitant to begin the year with in-person instruction ended up transitioning to in-person instruction by the middle of the 2020–2021 school year.

FIGURE 2 . Teacher-reported school insctructional models.

3.2.2 Teacher Responses to Questions About Remote Instruction (Fall 2020)

Among teaches who provided remote instruction, approximately two thirds (67.1%) reported that their school or district provided some form of training in delivery of remote instruction, and 88.0% of teachers believed that their delivery of remote instruction was more effective in fall 2020 than it was in spring 2020. In contrast, 95.5% of teachers believed that remote instruction was less effective than in-person instruction, with 67.6% indicating it was “much less effective” than in-person instruction. Internet access may contribute to relative ineffectiveness of remote instruction as teachers reported that, on average, 21.3% of remote learners did not have reliable internet access. Similarly, a large majority of teachers (91.5%) whose schools used some form of remote instruction reported that remote learners were less engaged in instruction than were in-person students. Additional information characterizing the nature of remote instruction is provided in Table 7 .

TABLE 7 . Nature of remote instruction during fall 2020 semester.

3.2.3 Teacher Responses to Questions About Academic Skills Instruction (Fall 2020)

A summary of the frequency with which teachers provided direct instruction in academic skills in the Spring and Fall 2020 semesters is reported in Table 8 . Across all academic domains, although a substantial number of teachers reported providing no direct instruction in academic skills in the Spring 2020 semester, almost all teachers reported providing direct instruction in academic skills daily or a few times per week during Fall 2020. After correcting for multiple comparisons, frequency of direct instruction in academic skills was not correlated with percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

TABLE 8 . Percentage of teachers providing instruction in academic skills.

Approximately 82.1% of teachers indicated that students were screened for reading difficulty at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, and 80.9% of teachers reported providing supplemental reading intervention to low performing students. Although 73.9% of teachers indicated that achievement gaps in reading were larger than they were in typical years, only 32.0% of teachers reported providing supplemental reading intervention to more students than they would in a typical year. In addition to examining data descriptively, we used multiple regression analysis to examine whether classroom demographic variables (i.e., percent of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, percent of students eligible for special education, percent of students who were white), instructional model, and percent of students ready to transition to the new grade at the beginning of the year were associated with magnitude of teacher-reported achievement gaps in academic skills. For reading, there were no significant predictors of teacher-reported achievement gaps in reading.

When asked about the instructional practices that were most effective for improving reading outcomes for remote learners, the most common responses supported the use of small group instruction, specific online platforms/apps that helped keep students engaged, and repeated practice. Other teachers reported miscellaneous activities that helped improve reading (e.g., phonics, combining independent work with live instruction, parent support) and a small number of teachers (about 6% of all responses) reported that there were no instructional practices that were effective at promoting reading skills for remote learners. There was a similar pattern of responses when teachers were asked about what worked best for students who may have fallen behind during the pandemic, with the most common responses supporting use of small group instruction, one-on-one instruction, and daily practice.

Although fewer teachers (69.7%) reported screening students for mathematics difficulties at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, a similar number of teachers (81.8%) reported providing supplemental mathematics intervention as reported providing supplemental reading intervention. Similar to results for reading, 65.6% of teachers indicate achievement gaps in mathematics were larger in fall 2020 than they are at the beginning of a typical school year, but only 29.2% of teachers reported providing supplemental mathematics intervention to more students than they would in a typical school year. As with reading, no identified predictor variables (classroom demographics, instructional model, and student readiness for transitioning at the beginning of the year) were associated with teacher-reported achievement gaps in mathematics in our multiple regression model.

When asked about instructional practices that were most effective for improving mathematics outcomes of remote learners, the most common practices identified for supporting mathematics skills in remote learners were use of specific online math learning platforms that included tools such as digital manipulatives, as well as small groups, daily practice, and explicit instruction. Other teachers gave miscellaneous responses or indicated that they did not believe anything was effective for teaching mathematics remotely. When asked about what worked best for students who may have fallen behind during the pandemic, the most common responses indicated that small-group or one-on-one instruction in specific math skills was effective. Other teachers reported miscellaneous responses (e.g., having parent support, review/re-teaching basic skills), and approximately 10% of teachers indicated they did not believe any practices were sufficient to help students who fell behind during the pandemic catch up to their peers.

In contrast to results for reading and mathematics, only 20.3% of teachers reported that their students were screened for writing difficulties at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, and only 51.2% of teachers reported providing supplemental writing intervention to low-performing students. A majority of teachers (56.8%) believed that achievement gaps in writing were comparable to typical years. Only 25.8% of teachers reported providing supplemental writing intervention to more students than they would in a typical year. Multiple regression analyses indicated that teachers who reported having more students who were ready to transition to their class at the beginning of Fall 2020 observed smaller changes in achievement gaps in writing due to the pandemic ( β = −0.15, p < 0.05). No other effects were statistically significant.

When asked what instructional practices supported development of writing skills for remote learners, the most common responses were practicing specific writing skills (e.g., handwriting, spelling, punctuation) and explicit instruction. Other less common responses included use of technology, and opportunities for independent writing. A substantial number of teachers (approximately 18.8%) indicated they did not believe any specific practices were effective for teaching writing skills remotely. When asked what could support writing skills among students who may have fallen behind due to the pandemic, the most common responses were daily practice and small group or one-on-one instruction. Other responses included parent support, live instruction, explicit instruction, and re-teaching basic skills. Approximately 14% of teachers indicated that they were concerned nothing would help catch up students who had fallen behind.

3.2.4 Teacher Responses to Questions About Special Populations (Fall 2020)

Regarding students with disabilities, approximately 25% of teachers reported that students with disabilities were spending less time in the general education class than they would in typical years; however, an additional 25% of teachers reported that students with disabilities were spending more time in the general education class than they would in typical years. In contrast, the majority of teachers (58.5%) reported that achievement gaps for students with disabilities were larger than they were in previous years. This pattern of results indicates that although the pandemic disproportionately affected achievement for students with disabilities, it did not appear to have a dramatic effect on inclusion in general education classrooms for students with disabilities in the Fall 2020 semester.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted instruction delivered to students in the spring and fall 2020 semesters, as well as teachers’ perceptions of the pandemic’s impact on student achievement. Our results suggested that although many students were not receiving daily direct instruction in academic skills during school closures in spring 2020, schools and districts were able to shift remarkably quickly to provide elementary school teachers with the supports needed to be prepared to deliver both remote and in-person instruction in an altered instructional environment during the 2020–2021 academic year. According to teachers’ perspectives, district and school efforts to shift the way instruction was delivered during the 2020–2021 academic year were successful at improving the overall quality of remote instruction and mitigating opportunity gaps.

Despite the tremendous efforts of teachers and schools, there is cause for alarm about the number of students who participated in academic instruction during the Spring 2020 semester. Based on our survey results, we estimated that between 7.2 million and 11.6 million elementary school students in grades K-5 may not have received any live remote instruction (e.g., video conference) during the pandemic in spring 2020. We estimated this range using a combination of U.S. Census data from 2018 and our current survey results, with margin of error calculations. According to our estimations of U.S. Census data (United States Census Bureau, 2018), there were more than 24 million students in grades K-5 in 2018 (ranging from 24.0 million to 24.2 million), which provides a conservative estimate for the number of students in grades K-5 in 2020. We then considered that 0.71% of teachers reported that their schools did not provide any remote instruction or learning activities for students. Next, we considered that 12.9% of teachers reported that they did not provide any live instruction, and of those that did, teachers reported that nearly a quarter of their students (24%) never attended remote learning. We used our margin of error estimates of ± 3.5% on each of these percentages to calculate our ranges. Our estimate of teachers was similar to an estimate from Education Week that approximately 23% of students were essentially “truant” during COVID-19-related school closures ( EdWeek Research Center, 2020 ). Even if we consider that our sample may have overestimated the percentage of students who missed instruction, and use 23% as an estimate instead, we would still estimate approximately 6.9 million students did not access live remote instruction during spring 2020 at the low end of the range.

The large impacts of school closures and associated remote instruction are seen through teacher report that only 50% of students were ready to transition to their class at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year. Regression analyses from fall 2020 indicated that low-income students, students with disabilities, and non-white students were those who were more likely to not have the skills needed to transition to the next grade level when school closures happened in Spring 2020, indicating disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on the most vulnerable students. However, it appears that teachers may have been aware of these disproportionate impacts, as analyses also indicated that teachers with greater percentages of students from low-income backgrounds were more likely to provide frequent direct instruction in academic skills.

Most teachers indicated that achievement gaps in reading and mathematics were larger in fall 2020 than they would be in typical years; however, these changes were not associated with instructional model, classroom demographics, and student readiness to begin the Fall 2020 semester. This is consistent with projections made by researchers (Kuhfeld et al., 2020) as well as our findings that many teachers were unable to provide daily instruction in mathematics skills during school closures in spring 2020. Research from other countries on impacts of the COVID pandemic corroborate our findings, as Engzell et al. (2021) reported that the amount of learning loss that occurred in the Netherlands corresponded directly to the amount of time schools were closed, indicating little to no learning during school closure and remote instruction.

Although teachers who completed our survey in fall 2020 reported that achievement gaps were larger than in prior years, most teachers did not report providing supplemental intervention in academic skills to more students than in previous years. There are several possible explanations for this pattern of results. First, it is possible that larger achievement gaps do not necessarily correspond to more students being behind, but instead reflect some students falling further behind than they would have been in a typical year. Alternatively, it is possible that there are more students who are struggling with academic skills, but that teachers do not have the time or resources to provide intervention to additional students. Regardless of the circumstances, it is alarming that many students struggling in academic content areas are not receiving appropriate support. Kuhfeld et al. (2020) projected that there would be greater variability in students’ academic skills at the beginning of the Fall 2020 semester than there would in typical years. If this is indeed the case, addressing such variability represents an additional challenge for teachers with limited resources, and teachers may choose to allocate resources to those students with the most significant educational need.

Given prior evidence that summer loss is greater for the most vulnerable students ( Quinn and Polikoff, 2017 ), we expected that effects of school closures would disproportionately affect those students (e.g., students from low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, English language learners). Findings from Engzell et al. (2021) and our surveys suggest this was the case. For example, teachers who responded to our surveys indicated that achievement gaps for students with disabilities were larger in fall 2020 than they would be in typical years. Although approximately 93% of teachers reported that they or another teacher at their school were providing accommodations for students with disabilities in spring 2020, one particularly surprising finding was that approximately 4% of teachers reported that neither they nor other teachers at their school were providing accommodations for students with disabilities. The remaining 3% of teachers reported that it was unknown whether anyone was providing accommodations for their students with disabilities. Similarly, less than 60% of teachers reported providing accommodations for English language learners in spring 2020. Many teachers are not prepared to meet the needs of English language learners ( García et al., 2010 ), and lack of access to instruction may have dire consequences for these students.

Although data from the spring 2020 survey indicated that students from low-income backgrounds were less likely to receive live instruction, data from the fall 2020 survey suggest that teachers and schools may have been able to mitigate these opportunity gaps during the fall 2020 semester, to some degree. For example, although there was a negative correlation between the percentage of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch and the frequency of live meetings in spring 2020, in fall 2020 there was no association between the percentage of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch and teacher perceptions of how achievement gaps in fall 2020 differed from previous years. In other words, teachers with larger numbers of low-income students were not more likely to report observing larger achievement gaps in fall 2020 compared to prior years. Similarly, there was not a consistent pattern of responses to suggest that service delivery models in fall 2020 differed substantially for students with disabilities when compared to previous years.

Efforts that schools made to prepare teachers for delivery of remote instruction appear to have been effective, according to teacher report. Although most teachers (69%) reported that they believed remote instruction delivered in spring 2020 was ineffective or they were uncertain of its effectiveness, a large majority of teachers reported they believed their remote instruction in fall 2020 was more effective than it was in spring 2020. It is possible that increases in teacher perceptions of remote instruction are due to greater experience delivering remote instruction, but it is also worth noting that most teachers reported receiving professional development opportunities on delivery of remote instruction. Of 57 teachers who completed an open-ended question about the nature of training they were provided, 60% indicated they had access to online workshops, conferences, etc., or completed one or more full day professional development workshops to improve delivery of remote instruction. Despite these efforts, several teachers provided information about what could potentially make instruction more effective. Several ideas were brought up by multiple teachers, such as increased access to online resources, more small-group or one-on-one instruction, more delivery of materials to students, a well-developed online curriculum, or a dedicated virtual/remote teacher.

4.1 Limitations

The samples of teachers who completed our surveys were generally representative of the population of teachers in the U.S. However, a large percentage of teachers did not respond to the surveys. Although responders and non-responders were similar in key demographic variables (e.g., SES, school setting, school type, grade level taught), our low response rate could result in selection bias, if teachers who responded to the surveys differed from other teachers in ways that we were unable to quantify (e.g., political beliefs, personal investment in how the COVID pandemic impacted students).

Additionally, Survey 1 was conducted when teachers may not have had access to their student records. In many cases, we asked teachers to estimate numbers that they may have been able to provide more accurately under other circumstances. For example, three teachers emailed us to indicate that they did not know the free or reduced-price lunch status of the students in their classrooms. It is also possible that the teachers may have under- or over-estimated other descriptive variables for their classrooms or were unaware of some of the school services provided by resource and special education teachers. Although all surveys require some level of estimation, and we expect any errors would be randomly distributed and potentially balanced across the sample, there is the potential for some mis-estimation in our findings.

A third limitation relates to the wording in some of our survey questions. For example, although teachers reported whether achievement gaps were larger or smaller than prior years, we do not have a baseline estimate of the magnitude of achievement gaps for each teacher in a typical year. For example, a teacher who works in a school district that is relatively segregated across SES lines may always observe large achievement gaps between students from low- and high-income backgrounds, leaving little opportunity for the pandemic to alter the magnitude of the achievement gaps.

4.2 Implications and Conclusions

The results of our surveys have important implications for future delivery of remote instruction. Although another pandemic of the same magnitude as the COVID-19 pandemic may not emerge soon, we do not know how the current pandemic will continue to evolve and affect student learning. Moreover, knowledge of how remote learning and school closures impact delivery of instruction and achievement has important implications for other emergency situations, in which schools may need to temporarily close (e.g., following natural disasters). Some teachers reported that combining independent work with live instruction was most effective for promoting academic achievement during remote instruction, and several teachers stressed the importance of evidence-based instructional practices, such as explicit instruction, for supporting students who fall behind during school closures. For example, when describing what would be effective for helping struggling students catch up, one teacher stated that “We need time to diagnose … deficiencies and set up instruction that fills in the gaps. Just pushing forward will not eliminate the gap, we have an opportunity to really do something for kids that can help. This is a question we should be discussing at each (meeting) instead of what is next in the pacing guide.” These types of comments from teachers, alongside other responses, highlight the need for screening and individualized or small group supports that are tailored to students’ individual instructional needs. Although such an approach is always advisable to help struggling students, careful attention to students’ needs and aligning instruction with students’ strengths and weaknesses may be particularly important to reduce educational inequities caused by the pandemic.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Human Subjects Committee. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

JG, MH, and JN) were equally responsible for the conduct of this research. All authors helped formulate the research questions to be included in surveys, assisted with survey distribution, data cleaning and analysis, and writing survey results for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method . New York, NY: Wiley and Sons .

Google Scholar

Educators for Excellence, (2020). Voices from the Virtual Classroom . Retrieved from https://e4e.org/sites/default/files/voices_from_the_virtual_classroom_2020.pdf .

EdWeek Research Center (2020). Survey Tracker: Monitoring How K-12 Educators Are Responding to Coronavirus . Education Week . Available at: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/27/survey-tracker-k-12-coronavirus-response.html .

Engzell, P., Frey, A., and Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning Loss Due to School Closures during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 118, e2022376118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2022376118

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

García, E., Arias, M. B., Harris Murri, N. J., and Serna, C. (2010). Developing Responsive Teachers: A challenge for a Demographic Reality. J. Teach. Education 61, 132–142. doi:10.1177/0022487109347878

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gross, B., and Opalka, A. (2020). Too many Schools Leave Learning to Chance during the Pandemic . Seattle, WA: Center for reinventing public education . Technical Report https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/final_national_sample_brief_2020.pdf .

Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., and Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching And Learning through a Pandemic: Key Findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19 Surveys. Data Note. Rand Corporation . Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-2.html .

Hobbs, T. D. (2020). Some School Districts Plan to End the Year Early, Call Remote Learning Too Tough . New York, NY: The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved from https://wsj.com/ .

Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., et al. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020 (NCES2020-144) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of EducationNational Center for Education Statistics . Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf .

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., and Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the Potential Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement. Educ. Res. 49, 549–565. doi:10.3102/0013189x20965918

Little, R. J. A. (1988). A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with Missing Values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 1198–1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

Little, T. D., and Rhemtulla, M. (2013). Planned Missing Data Designs for Developmental Researchers. Child. Dev. Perspect. 7, 199–204. doi:10.1111/cdep.12043

Marshall, D. T., Shannon, D. M., and Love, S. M. (2020). How Teachers Experienced the COVID-19 Transition to Remote Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 102, 46–50. doi:10.1177/0031721720970702

Morrissey, T. W., Hutchison, L., and Winsler, A. (2014). Family Income, School Attendance, and Academic Achievement in Elementary School. Dev. Psychol. 50, 741–753. doi:10.1037/a0033848

Natanson, H. (2020). Failing Grades Spike in Virginia’s Largest School System as Online Learning gap Emerges Nationwide . Washington Post . Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-schools-more-failing-grades/2020/11/24/1ac2412e-2e34-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html .

Preciado, M., Velasquez, I., and Ward, M. (2020). What We’re Learning: COVID 19 and Education: Notable Findings and Data Sources . Seattle, WA: Gates Foundation . Available at: https://gpp.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/articles/what-we-re-learning-covid-19-and-education-notable-findings-and-data-sources .

Quinn, D. M., and Polikoff, M. (2017). Summer Learning Loss: What Is it, and what Can We Do about it? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .

University of Southern California (2020). Understanding America Study . Available at: https://covid19pulse.usc.edu (Retrieved on December 10, 2020).

Keywords: COVID-19, survey research, elementary school, academic instruction, remote instruction

Citation: Goodrich JM, Hebert M and Namkung JM (2022) Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elementary School Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions Across the Spring and Fall 2020 Semesters. Front. Educ. 6:793285. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.793285

Received: 11 October 2021; Accepted: 31 December 2021; Published: 18 January 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Goodrich, Hebert and Namkung. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: J. Marc Goodrich, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Serving Vulnerable and Marginalized Populations in Social and Educational Contexts

School Engagement in Elementary School: A Systematic Review of 35 Years of Research

• Review Article
• Published: 30 November 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 793–849, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Juliana Martins   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-6173 1 ,
• Jennifer Cunha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-2049 1 ,
• Sílvia Lopes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7306-4385 1 ,
• Tânia Moreira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8113-1795 1 &
• Pedro Rosário   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3221-1916 1  

4597 Accesses

25 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

School engagement is considered an antidote to several academic problems found in middle and high school. Previous data highlight the importance of understanding school engagement in early years. The present systematic review aims to outline investigations regarding school engagement in elementary school. Findings are expected to (i) help educators learn about research in a comprehensible way, (ii) design future school-based interventions with strong theoretical support, and (iii) systematize information about research gaps and indicate new avenues for investigation. The systematic search for original articles published up to 2018 followed the PRISMA statement and Cochrane’s guidelines. A total of 102 articles were included and organized, according to the self-system model of motivational development from Skinner et al. ( Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 765–781, 2008 ). Results showed that balanced and quality support from peers, teachers, and parents positively influenced school engagement. Additionally, some common characteristics of the school context were found to undermine school engagement. Regarding interventions aimed to promote school engagement, we found various effective designs, differing in complexity. Moreover, studies focused on students’ emotions, behaviors and cognitions, experiences, motivational variables, and learning provided important inputs to promote school engagement. Furthermore, studies focused on examining the trajectories of school engagement provided data to understand how to prevent school engagement from declining throughout schooling. Finally, most studies found a positive and significant relationship between school engagement and achievement; however, results differ regarding the source of information or school domain examined. The school engagement conceptualizations, dimensions, and measures used were analyzed and their relationships to the results were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review

Trends in mathematics education and insights from a meta-review and bibliometric analysis of review studies

Availability of data and material.

Not applicable.

Code Availability

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review..

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103 , 760–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00134

Article   Google Scholar  

*Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28 (1), 107–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969609547913

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45 , 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303

*Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2016). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110 (2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931

*Archambault, I., Kurdi, V., Olivier, E., & Goulet, M. (2016). The joint effect of peer victimization and conflict with teachers on student engagement at the end of elementary school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 62 (2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.2.0207

*Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2013). Transactional associations between classroom engagement and relations with teachers from first through fourth grade. Learning and Instruction, 23 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.003

Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (2020). Chapter 1: JBI systematic reviews. In E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn. (Eds), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (pp. 14–21). JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-02

*Ashiabi, G. (2005). Household food insecurity and children’s school engagement. Journal of Children and Poverty, 11 (1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1079612042000333027

*Baroody, A. E., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A., & Curby, T. W. (2016). A multi-method approach for describing the contributions of student engagement on fifth grade students’ social competence and achievement in mathematics. Learning and Individual Differences, 48 , 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.012

*Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32 (3), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3203_1

*Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88 , 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1086/461536

*Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement, and instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/525550

Bramer, W. M., De Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106 (4), 531–541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283

Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18 (3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528309529274

*Brophy, J., Rohrkemper, M., Rashid, H., & Goldberger, M. (1983). Relationships between teachers’ presentations of classroom tasks and students’ engagement in those tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (4), 544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.4.544

*Bryce, C. I., Bradley, R. H., Abry, T., Swanson, J., & Thompson, M. S. (2019). Parents’ and teachers’ academic influences, behavioral engagement, and first- and fifth-grade achievement. School Psychology, 34 (5), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000297

*Buhs, E. S. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.001

*Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1

*Cadima, J., Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., & Buyse, E. (2015). Child engagement in the transition to school: Contributions of self-regulation, teacher–child relationships and classroom climate. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.008

*Cai, E. Y. L., & Liem, G. A. D. (2017). ‘Why do I study and what do I want to achieve by studying?’ Understanding the reasons and the aims of student engagement. School Psychology International, 38 (2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316686399

*Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., Carter, J. C., Pennington, J., & Buckman, D. M. (2014). The impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents’ reading engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 107 (1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753859

*Cappella, E., Kim, H. Y., Neal, J. W., & Jackson, D. R. (2013). Classroom peer relationships and behavioral engagement in elementary school: The role of social network equity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52 , 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9603-5

Caraway, K., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40 (4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10092

*Chen, Q., Hughes, J. N., Liew, J., & Kwok, O. M. (2010). Joint contributions of peer acceptance and peer academic reputation to achievement in academically at-risk children: Mediating processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31 , 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.001

Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40 , 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004

Christenson, S. C., Reschly, A. C., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of research on student engagement . New York: Springer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7

Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie. (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). New York Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes, (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 1099–1120). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61–97). University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self process and development: The Minnesota symposia on child development (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Erlbaum.

Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Martins, J., & Högemann, J. (2019). Does teacher homework feedback matter to 6th graders’ school engagement?: A mixed methods study. Metacognition and Learning, 14 (2), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09200-z

*Darensbourg, A. M., & Blake, J. J. (2013). Predictors of achievement in African American students at risk for academic failure: The roles of achievement values and behavioral engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 50 , 1044–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21730

*De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2015). Developmental trajectories of children’s behavioral engagement in late elementary school: Both teachers and peers matter. Developmental Psychology, 51 , 1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039478

Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985).Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior 11–40 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_2

*Deed, C. (2008). Disengaged boys' perspectives about learning. Education, 3–13 , 36 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270701577248

*Dolezal, S. E., Welsh, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M. M. (2003). How nine third-grade teachers motivate student academic engagement. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (3), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1086/499725

*Dornhecker, M., Blake, J. J., Benden, M., Zhao, H., & Wendel, M. (2015). The effect of stand-biased desks on academic engagement: An exploratory study. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 53 (5), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2015.1029641

*Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 (12), 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

*Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 36 (3), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087938

Estell, D., & Perdue, N. (2013). Social support and behavioral and affective school engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50 , 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21681

Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). The company they keep: Relation of adolescents’ adjustment and behavior to their friends’ perceptions of authoritative parenting in the social network. Developmental Psychology, 31 , 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.300

Fredricks, J. A. (2014). Eight myths of student disengagement: Creating classrooms of deep learning . Los Angeles, CA: Corwin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483394534

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 , 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002

*Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.95.1.148

*Galla, B., Wood, J., Tsukayama, E., Har, K., Chiu, A., & Langer, D. (2014). A longitudinal multilevel model analysis of the within-person and between-person effect of effortful engagement and academic self-efficacy on academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 52 , 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.04.001

Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Guerin, D. W. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31 , 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077752

*Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700606

*Gremmen, M. C., Van den Berg, Y. H., Steglich, C., Veenstra, R., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2018). The importance of near-seated peers for elementary students’ academic engagement and achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57 , 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.004

*Gruman, D. H., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Fleming, C. B. (2008). Longitudinal effects of student mobility on three dimensions of elementary school engagement. Child Development, 79 (6), 1833–1852. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01229.x

*Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Tompkins, V., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Classroom quality and student engagement: Contributions to third-grade reading skills. Frontiers in Educational Psychology, 2 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00157

*Guo, Y., Sun, S., Breit-Smith, A., Morrison, F. J., & Connor, C. M. (2015). Behavioral engagement and reading achievement in elementary-school-age children: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (2), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037638

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Reading research handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

*Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (3), 306–332. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.31.3.5

*Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education, 102 (4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341

Hanover Research. (2013). Student perceptions surveys and teacher assessments. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Hanover-Research-Student-Surveys.pdf

*Hastings, N., & Schweiso, J. (1995). Tasks and tables: The effects of seating arrangements on task engagement in primary classrooms. Educational Research, 37 (3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188950370306

Heng, K. (2014). The relationships between student engagement and the academic achievement of FirstYear university students in Cambodia. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 2 , 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4029901300958

*Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16 (4), 431–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3

Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604

Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2 (3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x

Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 , 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9579-5

*Hoglund, W. L., Klingle, K. E., & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53 , 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.06.002

Horstmanshof, L., & Zimitat, C. (2007). Future time orientation predicts academic engagement among first-year university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 , 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906x160778

*Hosan, N. E., & Hoglund, W. (2017). Do teacher–child relationship and friendship quality matter for children's school engagement and academic skills?. School Psychology Review , 46 (2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0043.v46-2

Huang, D., Coordt, A., La Torre, D., Leon, S., Miyoshi, J., Perez, P., & Peterson, C. (2007). The after-school hours: Examining the relationship between afterschool staff-based social capital and student engagement in LA’s BEST. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. https://doi.org/10.1037/e643962011-001

*Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of teacher–student support on elementary students’ peer acceptance: A prospective analysis. Journal of School Psychology , 43 (6), 465 480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.001

*Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. M. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39

*Hughes, J. N., & Zhang, D. (2007). Effects of the structure of classmates’ perceptions of peers’ academic abilities on children’s perceived cognitive competence, peer acceptance, and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 , 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.12.003

*Hughes, J. N., Dyer, N., Luo, W., & Kwok, O. M. (2009). Effects of peer academic reputation on achievement in academically at-risk elementary students. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30 , 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.008

*Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O. M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1

*Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2011). Teacher performance goal practices and elementary students’ behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003

*Hughes, J. N., Zhang, D., & Hill, C. R. (2006). Peer assessments of normative and individual teacher–student support predict social acceptance and engagement among low-achieving children. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (6), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.002

*Iyer, R. V., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eisenberg, N., & Thompson, M. (2010). Peer victimization and effortful control: Relations to school engagement and academic achievement. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56 (3), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0058

Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241

Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x

Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8 (1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340893

*Kaiser, J., Retelsdorf, J., Südkamp, A., & Möller, J. (2013). Achievement and engagement: How student characteristics influence teacher judgments. Learning and Instruction, 28 , 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.06.001

*Kim, H. Y., & Cappella, E. (2016). Mapping the social world of classrooms: A multi-level, multi-reporter approach to social processes and behavioral engagement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57 (1–2), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12022

*Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29 (6), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.6.970

*Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78 (4), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01060.x

Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 , 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892

*Kwon, K., Kupzyk, K., & Benton, A. (2018). Negative emotionality, emotion regulation, and achievement: Cross-lagged relations and mediation of academic engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 67 , 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.07.004

*Lan, X., Ponitz, C. C., Miller, K. F., Li, S., Cortina, K., Perry, M., & Fang, G. (2009). Keeping their attention: Classroom practices associated with behavioral engagement in first grade mathematics classes in China and the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.002

*Langhout, R. D., & Mitchell, C. A. (2008). Engaging contexts: Drawing the link between student and teacher experiences of the hidden curriculum. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18 (6), 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.974

*Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (3), 585–610. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030003585

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47 , 233–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307

*Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Personal and ecological assets and academic competence in early adolescence: The mediating role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39 (7), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9535-4

Li-Grining, C. P., Votruba-Drzal, E., Maldonado-Carreno, C., & Hass, K. (2010). Children’s early approaches to learning and academic trajectories through fifth grade. Developmental Psychology, 46 (5), 1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020066

*Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001

*Liu, R.-D., Zhen, R., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Jiang, R., & Xu, L. (2017). Teacher support and math engagement: Roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions. Educational Psychology, 38 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1359238

*Luo, W., Hughes, J. N., Liew, J., & Kwok, O. (2009). Classifying academically at-risk first graders into engagement types: Association with long-term achievement trajectories. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (4), 380–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/593939

*Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 100 (1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.1.3-20

*Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and school engagement: An examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9833-0

MacLellan, P. (2016). Why don't teachers use education research in teaching?. Education in Chemistry . Retrieved from https://eic.rsc.org/analysis/why-dont-teachers-use-education-research-in-teaching/2010170.article .

Mahatmya, D., Lohman, B. J., Matjasko, J. L., & Farb, A. F. (2012). Engagement across developmental periods. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie. (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 45–63). New York Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_3

*Martens, B. K., Bradley, T. A., & Eckert, T. L. (1997). Effects of reinforcement history and instructions on the persistence of student engagement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30 (3), 569–572. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-569

*Martens, B. K., Lochner, D. G., & Kelly, S. Q. (1992). The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25 (1), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-143

Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34 (5), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312472759

*Martin, D. P., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math? Journal of School Psychology, 53 (5), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.001

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.003

McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

*McHugh, M. B., Tingstrom, D. H., Radley, K. C., Barry, C. T., & Walker, K. M. (2016). Effects of Tootling on classwide and individual disruptive and academically engaged behavior of lower-elementary students. Behavioral Interventions, 31 (4), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1447

*Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.80.4.514

*Miller, L. M., Dufrene, B. A., Olmi, D. J., Tingstrom, D., & Filce, H. (2015a). Self-monitoring as a viable fading option in check-in/check-out. Journal of School Psychology, 53 , 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.004

*Miller, L. M., Dufrene, B. A., Sterling, H. E., Olmi, D. J., & Bachmayer, E. (2015b). The effects of check-in/check-out on problem behavior and academic engagement in elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17 , 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713517141

Mireles-Rios, R., & Romo, L. F. (2010). Maternal and teacher interaction and student engagement in math and reading among Mexican American girls from a rural community. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32 (3), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986310374020

Mo, Y., & Singh, K. (2008). Parents’ relationships and involvement: Effects on students’ school engagement and performance. RMLE Online, 31 (10), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2008.11462053

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

*Moller, S., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Bottia, M. C., & Banerjee, N. (2014). Is academic engagement the panacea for achievement in mathematics across racial/ethnic groups? Assessing the role of teacher culture. Social Forces, 92 , 1513–1544. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou018

*Mullender-Wijnsma, M. J., Hartman, E., de Greeff, J. W., Bosker, R. J., Doolaard, S., & Visscher, C. (2015). Moderate-to-vigorous physically active academic lessons and academic engagement in children with and without a social disadvantage: A within subject experimental design. BMC Public Health, 15 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1745-y

Newmann, F. (1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 62–91). Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 , 261–290.

*O’Neal, C. R. (2018). The impact of stress on later literacy achievement via grit and engagement among dual language elementary school students. School Psychology International, 39 (2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317752519

*O’Neal, C. R., Boyars, M. Y., & Riley, L. W. (2019). Dual language learners’ grit, engagement, and literacy achievement in elementary school. School Psychology International, 40 (6), 598–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319875176

OECD (2012). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I) . Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-I.pdf

*Olivier, E., Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2018). Boys’ and girls’ latent profiles of behavior and social adjustment in school: Longitudinal links with later student behavioral engagement and academic achievement? Journal of School Psychology, 69 , 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.05.006

*Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., & Parent, S. (2012). Relating kindergarten attention to subsequent developmental pathways of classroom engagement in elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40 (5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9605-4

*Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2015). Students’ engagement in literacy tasks. The Reading Teacher, 69 (2), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1378

*Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2016). Sixth-grade students’ engagement in academic tasks. The Journal of Educational Research, 111 (2), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1246408

*Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781

*Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83

*Perdue, N. H., Manzeske, D. P., & Estell, D. B. (2009). Early predictors of school engagement: Exploring the role of peer relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (10), 1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20446

*Peterson, P. L., & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22 (3), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022003309

*Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., & Waas, G. A. (1984). Students’ cognitions and time on task during mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 21 (3), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021003487

*Pierson, L. H., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention of self-system processes, school engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.300

Pino-James, N., Shernoff, D. J., Bressler, D. M., Larson, S. C., & Sinha, S. (2019). Instructional interventions that support student engagement: An international perspective. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson. (Eds), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 103–119). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00008-5

*Portilla, X. A., Ballard, P. J., Adler, N. E., Boyce, W. T., & Obradović, J. (2014). An integrative view of school functioning: Transactions between self-regulation, school engagement, and teacher–child relationship quality. Child Development, 85 , 1915–1931. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12259

*Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/592367

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690

*Reyes, M., Brackett, M., Rivers, S., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences, 17 , 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., & Payne, C. (2002). Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23 (4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(02)00128-4

*Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Abry, T., Baroody, A. E., & Curby, T. W. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 , 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037252

Rosário, P., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., & Núñez, J. C. (2019). “Homework should be… but we do not live in an ideal world”: Mathematics teachers’ perspectives on quality homework and on homework assigned in elementary and middle schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00224

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, C., Cerezo, R., Fernández, E., Tuero, E., & Högemann, J. (2017a). Analysis of instructional programs for improving self-regulated learning SRL through written text. In R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, and M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp. 201–231). Leiden: Brill Editions. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_010

*Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., Moreira, T., & Valle, A. (2017b). Promoting Gypsy children’s behavioural engagement and school success: Evidence from a four-wave longitudinal study. British Educational Research Journal, 43 (3), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3271

*Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., & Moreira, T. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: A story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47 , 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Ferrando, P., Paiva, O., Lourenço, A., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2013). The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: A two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 8 (1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6

Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.001.0001

Rumberger, R. W., & Lim, S. A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research (California Dropout Research Project). Retrieved from http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm

*Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and children’s engagement in the classroom. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly , 45 , 143–171. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093320

Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28 (1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000091

*Salmela-Aro, K., Muotka, J., Alho K., Hakkarainen K., & Lonka, K. (2016). School burnout and engagement profiles among digital natives in Finland: A person-oriented approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 13 (6), 704–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2015.1107542

Salvador-Oliván, J. A., Marco-Cuenca, G., & Arquero-Avilés, R. (2019). Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association , 107(2). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567

*Schardt, A. A., Miller, F. G., & Bedesem, P. L. (2018). The effects of CellF-Monitoring on students’ academic engagement: A technology-based self-monitoring intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21 (1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718773462

Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7089-2

Book   Google Scholar  

*Shin, H. (2017). Examining early adolescents’ peer climate using descriptive and status norms on academic engagement and aggressive behavior in the classroom. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18 (3), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9494-5

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8 (1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340894

*Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 , 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233

*Skinner, E. A., Pitzer, J. R., & Steele, J. S. (2016). Can student engagement serve as a motivational resource for academic coping, persistence, and learning during late elementary and early middle school? Developmental Psychology, 52 (12), 2099–2117. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000232

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of larger motivational dynamic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

*Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: The role of perceived control in children’s engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22

*Strambler, M. J., & McKown, C. (2013). Promoting student engagement through evidence-based action research with teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 23 (2), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2013.757153

*Strambler, M. J., & Weinstein, R. S. (2010). Psychological disengagement in elementary school among ethnic minority students. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31 (2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.006

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9 , 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003

Sylva, K., Scott, S., Totsika, V., Ereky-Stevens, K., & Crook, C. (2008). Training parents to help their children read: A randomized control trial. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 , 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907x255718

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20 (1), 57–59.

Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

Wang, M., & Fredricks, J. A. (2013). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85 , 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138

Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47 , 633–662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209

Wang, M., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49 , 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001

Wanyama SB, McQuaid RW, KittlerM 2021).Where you search determines what you find: The effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1892378

*Weyns, T., Colpin, H., De Laet, S., Engels, M., & Verschueren, K. (2017). Teacher support, peer acceptance, and engagement in the classroom: A three-wave longitudinal study in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47 (6), 1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0774-5

*Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45 (5), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20307

*Wong, R. S. M., Ho, F. K. W., Wong, W. H. S., Tung, K. T. S., Chow, C. B., Rao, N., & Ip, P. (2018). Parental involvement in primary school education: Its relationship with children’s academic performance and psychosocial competence through engaging children with school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (5), 1544–1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-1011-2

Wonglorsaichon, B., Wongwanich, S., & Wiratchai, N. (2014). The influence of students school engagement on learning achievement: A structural equation modeling analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 , 1748–1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.467

*Wu, J.-Y., Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. M. (2010). Teacher–student relationship quality type in elementary grades: Effects on trajectories for achievement and engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 48 (5), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.004

*Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032792

Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.

*Yang, M.-Y., Chen, Z., Rhodes, J. L. F., & Orooji, M. (2018). A longitudinal study on risk factors of grade retention among elementary school students using a multilevel analysis: Focusing on material hardship and lack of school engagement. Children and Youth Services Review, 88 , 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.043

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement . Indiana University.

Zeuli, J. S. (1994). How do teachers understand research when they read it? Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(94)90039-6

Zhang, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Chen, L.-J. (2005). Parent and teacher engagement in fostering the self-determination of students with disabilities: A comparison between the United States and the Republic of China. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010701

Download references

This study was partially conducted at the Psychology Research Centre (PSI/01662), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (UID/PSI/01662/2019), through the national funds (PIDDAC). Juliana Martins (SFRH/BD/132058/2017) was supported by a PhD studentship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P.), funded with allocations from the State Budget of the Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education, and with allocations from the European Social Fund, to be made available under PORTUGAL2020, namely through the North Regional Operational Program (NORTE 2020).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Juliana Martins, Jennifer Cunha, Sílvia Lopes, Tânia Moreira & Pedro Rosário

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J. M. wrote the manuscript with valuable inputs from the remaining authors. J. M., J. C., T. M., and P. R. substantially contributed to the conception and the design of the work. J. M. was responsible for literature search and data extraction. J. M. and S. L. were responsible for the blinded literature search selection and data extraction. J. C. oversaw data interpretation and provided technical guidance. P. R. made important intellectual contributions during the research design and manuscript revision. All authors agreed for all aspects of the work and approved the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Rosário .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 434 KB)

Supplementary file2 (pdf 446 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Martins, J., Cunha, J., Lopes, S. et al. School Engagement in Elementary School: A Systematic Review of 35 Years of Research. Educ Psychol Rev 34 , 793–849 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09642-5

Download citation

Accepted : 29 September 2021

Published : 30 November 2021

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09642-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School engagement
• Academic engagement
• Academic achievement
• Elementary school students
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Public K-12 Teachers Want Americans To Know About Teaching

Illustrations by Hokyoung Kim

At a time when most teachers are feeling stressed and overwhelmed in their jobs, we asked 2,531 public K-12 teachers this open-ended question:

If there’s one thing you’d want the public to know about teachers, what would it be?

We also asked Americans what they think about teachers to compare with teachers’ perceptions of how the public views them.

Related: What’s It Like To Be a Teacher in America Today?

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand what public K-12 teachers would like Americans to know about their profession. We also wanted to learn how the public thinks about teachers.

For the open-end question, we surveyed 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers surveyed are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public K-12 school teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

Overall, 96% of surveyed teachers provided an answer to the open-ended question. Center researchers developed a coding scheme categorizing the responses, coded all responses, and then grouped them into the six themes explored in the data essay.

For the questions for the general public, we surveyed 5,029 U.S. adults from Nov. 9 to Nov. 16, 2023. The adults surveyed are members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative online survey panel. Panel members are randomly recruited through probability-based sampling, and households are provided with access to the Internet and hardware if needed. To ensure that the results of this survey reflect a balanced cross section of the nation, the data is weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories.

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, the teacher survey methodology and the general public survey methodology .

Most of the responses to the open-ended question fell into one of these six themes:

Teaching is a hard job

About half of teachers (51%) said they want the public to know that teaching is a difficult job and that teachers are hardworking. Within this share, many mentioned that they have roles and responsibilities in the classroom besides teaching, which makes the job stressful. Many also talked about working long hours, beyond those they’re contracted for.

“Teachers serve multiple roles other than being responsible for teaching curriculum. We are counselors, behavioral specialists and parents for students who need us to fill those roles. We sacrifice a lot to give all of ourselves to the role as teacher.”

– Elementary school teacher

“The amount of extra hours that teachers have to put in beyond the contractual time is ridiculous. Arriving 30 minutes before and leaving an hour after is just the tip of the iceberg. … And as far as ‘having summers off,’ most of August is taken up with preparing materials for the upcoming school year or attending three, four, seven days’ worth of unpaid development training.”

– High school teacher

Teachers care about their students

The next most common theme: 22% of teachers brought up how fulfilling teaching is and how much teachers care about their students. Many gave examples of the hardships of teaching but reaffirmed that they do their job because they love the kids and helping them succeed. 

“We are passionate about what we do. Every child we teach is important to us and we look out for them like they are our own.”

– Middle school teacher

“We are in it for the kids, and the most incredible moments are when children make connections with learning.”

Teachers are undervalued and disrespected

Some 17% of teachers want the public to know that they feel undervalued and disrespected, and that they need more public support. Some mentioned that they are well-educated professionals but are not treated as such. And many teachers in this category responded with a general plea for support from the public, which they don’t feel they’re getting now.

“We feel undervalued. The public and many parents of my students treat me and my peers as if we do not know as much as they do, as if we are uneducated.”

“The public attitudes toward teachers have been degrading, and it is making it impossible for well-qualified teachers to be found. People are simply not wanting to go into the profession because of public sentiments.”

Teachers are underpaid

A similar share of teachers (15%) want the public to know that teachers are underpaid. Many teachers said their salary doesn’t account for the effort and care they put into their students’ education and believe that their pay should reflect this.

“We are sorely underpaid for the amount of hours we work and the education level we have attained.”

Teachers need support and resources from government and administrators

About one-in-ten teachers (9%) said they need more support from the government, their administrators and other key stakeholders. Many mentioned working in understaffed schools, not having enough funding and paying for supplies out of pocket. Some teachers also expressed that they have little control over the curriculum that they teach.

“The world-class education we used to be proud of does not exist because of all the red tape we are constantly navigating. If you want to see real change in the classroom, advocate for smaller class sizes for your child, push your district to cap class sizes at a reasonable level and have real, authentic conversations with your child’s teacher about what is going on in the classroom if you’re curious.”

Teachers need more support from parents

Roughly the same share of teachers (8%) want the public to know that teachers need more support from parents, emphasizing that the parent-teacher relationship is strained. Many view parents as partners in their child’s education and believe that a strong relationship improves kids’ overall social and emotional development.

“Teachers help students to reach their potential. However, that job is near impossible if parents/guardians do not take an active part in their student’s education.”

How the U.S. public views teachers

While the top response from teachers in the open-ended question is that they want the public to know that teaching is a hard job, most Americans already see it that way. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say being a public K-12 teacher is harder than most other jobs, with 33% saying it’s a lot harder.

And about three-quarters of Americans (74%) say teachers should be paid more than they are now, including 39% who say teachers should be paid a lot more.

Americans are about evenly divided on whether the public generally looks up to (32%) or down on (30%) public K-12 teachers. Some 37% say Americans neither look up to or down on public K-12 teachers.

In addition to the open-ended question about what they want the public to know about them, we asked teachers how much they think most Americans trust public K-12 teachers to do their job well. We also asked the public how much they trust teachers. Answers differ considerably.

Nearly half of public K-12 teachers (47%) say most Americans don’t trust teachers much or at all. A third say most Americans trust teachers some, and 18% say the public trusts teachers a great deal or a fair amount.

In contrast, a majority of Americans (57%) say they do trust public K-12 teachers to do their job well a great deal or a fair amount. About a quarter (26%) say they trust teachers some, and 17% say they don’t trust teachers much or at all.

Related: About half of Americans say public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction

How the public’s views differ by party

There are sizable party differences in Americans’ views of teachers. In particular, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say:

• They trust teachers to do their job well a great deal or a fair amount (70% vs. 44%)
• Teaching is a lot or somewhat harder when compared with most other jobs (77% vs. 59%)
• Teachers should be paid a lot or somewhat more than they are now (86% vs. 63%)

In their own words

Below, we have a selection of quotes that describe what teachers want the public to know about them and their profession.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Our Mission

How to Read and Interpret Research to Benefit Your Teaching Practice

Teachers can find helpful ideas in research articles and take a strategic approach to get the most out of what they’re reading.

Have you read any education blogs, attended a conference session this summer, or gone to a back-to-school meeting so far where information on PowerPoint slides was supported with research like this: “Holland et al., 2023”? Perhaps, like me, you’ve wondered what to do with these citations or how to find and read the work cited. We want to improve our teaching practice and keep learning amid our busy schedules and responsibilities. When we find a sliver of time to look for the research article(s) being cited, how are we supposed to read, interpret, implement, and reflect on it in our practice? 

There has been much research over the past decade building on research-practice partnerships . Teachers and researchers should work collaboratively to improve student learning. Though researchers in higher education typically conduct formal research and publish their work in journal articles, it’s important for teachers to also see themselves as researchers. They engage in qualitative analysis while circulating the room to examine and interpret student work and demonstrate quantitative analysis when making predictions around student achievement data.

There are different sources of knowledge and timely questions to consider that education researchers can learn and take from teachers. So, what if teachers were better equipped to translate research findings from a journal article into improved practice relevant to their classroom’s immediate needs? I’ll offer some suggestions on how to answer this question.

Removing Barriers to New Information

For starters, research is crucial for education. It helps us learn and create new knowledge. Teachers learning how to translate research into practice can help contribute toward continuous improvement in schools. However, not all research is beneficial or easily applicable. While personal interests may lead researchers in a different direction, your classroom experience holds valuable expertise. Researchers should be viewed as allies, not sole authorities.

Additionally, paywalls prevent teachers from accessing valuable research articles that are often referenced in professional development. However, some sites, like Sage and JSTOR , offer open access journals where you can find research relevant to your classroom needs. Google Scholar is another helpful resource where you can plug in keywords like elementary math , achievement , small-group instruction , or diverse learners to find articles freely available as PDFs. Alternatively, you can use Elicit and get answers to specific questions. It can provide a list of relevant articles and summaries of their findings.

Approach research articles differently than other types of writing, as they aren’t intended for our specific audience but rather for academic researchers. Keep this in mind when selecting articles that align with your teaching vision, student demographic, and school environment.

Using behavioral and brain science research, I implemented the spacing effect . I used this strategy to include spaced fluency, partner practices, and spiral reviews (e.g., “do nows”) with an intentional selection of questions and tasks based on student work samples and formative/summative assessment data. It improved my students’ memory, long-term retention, and proficiency, so I didn’t take it too personally when some of them forgot procedures or symbols.

What You’ll Find in a Research Article

Certain elements are always included in a research article. The abstract gives a brief overview. Following that, the introduction typically explains the purpose and significance of the research—often through a theoretical framework and literature review. Other common sections of a research article may include methodology, results or findings, and discussion or conclusion.

The methodology section explains how the researchers answered their research question(s) to understand the topic. The results/findings section provides the answer(s) to the research question(s), while the discussion/conclusion section explains the importance and meaning of the results/findings and why it matters to readers and the field of education at large.

How to Process Information to Find What You’re Looking For

To avoid getting overwhelmed while reading research, take notes. Many articles are lengthy and filled with complex terminology and citations. Choose one relevant article at a time, and jot down important points or questions.

You could apply many strategies to read research, but here’s an idea that takes our time constraints and bandwidth as teachers into account:

• First, read the title and full abstract, then scan and skim the introduction. You’ll be able to see if it’s relevant to your interests, needs, and whether you need to continue reading. 
• After you’ve decided if the research is relevant to your classroom and professional development, jump straight to the discussion/conclusion section to see the “so what” about the research findings and how they could apply to your classroom. Review the findings/results section after for more details if needed.

Decipher the Details in the Data 

As a math, science, or English language arts teacher, you might come across figures, tables, or graphs that could spark ideas for your lessons. Some of these visuals and data may seem complex and difficult to understand. To make sense of them, take it slow and read through the notes and descriptions carefully.             

For example, researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Alexey Makarin created a graph to show that middle school math teachers who had online access and support to use high-quality materials saw a positive impact on math test scores, especially when they used the materials for multiple lessons. The notes below the graph explain how the data was collected and which school districts were involved in the study.

Lastly, after reading the findings/results section, you’ll understand the gist of the research and if it’s applicable to your needs. Reading beyond these sections depends on your schedule and interests. It’s perfectly normal if it takes additional time to digest these sections.

When it comes to reading research, teachers don’t have to go it alone. School and district leaders can involve us in discussions about research findings and their practical implications for our school during professional learning community meetings or professional development sessions before the start of the school year. Even if only a few teachers participate in this process, sharing the main points with peers and the principal can have a significantly positive impact on improving direct instruction for students.

Elementary Education Research Paper Topics

This comprehensive guide to elementary education research paper topics is designed to assist students and researchers in the field of education. The guide provides a wide array of topics divided into ten categories, each with ten unique topics, offering a diverse range of areas to explore in the field of elementary education. Additionally, the guide offers expert advice on how to choose a research topic and how to write an elementary education research paper. The final sections of the guide introduce iResearchNet’s professional writing services and encourage students to take advantage of these services for their research needs.

100 Elementary Education Research Paper Topics

Elementary education is a broad field with numerous areas to explore. Whether you’re interested in teaching methods, curriculum development, educational technology, or the social aspects of elementary education, there’s a research topic for you. Here, we present a comprehensive list of elementary education research paper topics, divided into ten categories. Each category contains ten unique topics, offering a diverse range of areas to explore in your research.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

1. Teaching Methods and Strategies

• The effectiveness of Montessori methods in elementary education.
• The role of play in learning in the early years.
• The impact of differentiated instruction on student achievement.
• The benefits and challenges of cooperative learning in the elementary classroom.
• The role of feedback in promoting student learning.
• The impact of teaching strategies on students’ motivation.
• The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in science education.
• The role of storytelling in teaching literacy skills.
• The impact of technology on teaching and learning in the elementary classroom.
• The role of creativity in teaching and learning.

2. Curriculum and Instruction

• The impact of curriculum design on student learning.
• The role of interdisciplinary teaching in elementary education.
• The effectiveness of project-based learning in teaching science.
• The role of cultural relevance in curriculum design.
• The impact of standardized testing on curriculum and instruction.
• The role of critical thinking in the elementary curriculum.
• The effectiveness of integrating arts in the curriculum.
• The impact of curriculum alignment on student achievement.
• The role of experiential learning in the elementary curriculum.
• The challenges of teaching social studies in the elementary classroom.

3. Educational Technology

• The impact of digital technology on student learning.
• The role of educational games in teaching math.
• The effectiveness of using iPads in the classroom.
• The role of virtual reality in teaching science.
• The impact of technology on student engagement.
• The challenges of integrating technology in the classroom.
• The role of technology in promoting collaborative learning.
• The effectiveness of using technology in teaching reading skills.
• The impact of technology on teacher-student communication.
• The role of technology in personalized learning.

4. Social Aspects of Elementary Education

• The impact of classroom climate on student learning.
• The role of social-emotional learning in elementary education.
• The effectiveness of character education programs.
• The role of peer relationships in student learning.
• The impact of school culture on student achievement.
• The challenges of teaching diversity and inclusion in the elementary classroom.
• The role of student-teacher relationships in student learning.
• The effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in elementary schools.
• The impact of parental involvement on student achievement.
• The role of community partnerships in promoting student learning.

5. Special Education

• The effectiveness of inclusive education in the elementary classroom.
• The role of individualized education programs in supporting students with special needs.
• The impact of teacher training on the success of inclusive education.
• The challenges of teaching students with learning disabilities.
• The role of assistive technology in supporting students with special needs.
• The effectiveness of earlyintervention programs for students with special needs.
• The impact of classroom accommodations on the academic success of students with special needs.
• The role of collaboration between general and special education teachers.
• The effectiveness of behavior management strategies for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
• The impact of special education policies on student outcomes.

6. Early Childhood Education

• The impact of early childhood education on academic success.
• The role of play in early childhood education.
• The effectiveness of early literacy programs.
• The role of parental involvement in early childhood education.
• The impact of early childhood education on social skills development.
• The challenges of teaching math in early childhood education.
• The role of creativity in early childhood education.
• The effectiveness of early intervention programs.
• The impact of early childhood education on cognitive development.
• The role of teacher-child relationships in early childhood education.

7. Educational Policies and Reforms

• The impact of No Child Left Behind on elementary education.
• The role of Common Core State Standards in curriculum development.
• The effectiveness of school choice policies.
• The role of educational policies in promoting equity in education.
• The impact of teacher evaluation policies on teaching and learning.
• The challenges of implementing educational reforms in elementary schools.
• The role of educational policies in promoting teacher quality.
• The effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing the achievement gap.
• The impact of educational funding policies on student achievement.
• The role of educational policies in promoting parental involvement.

8. Teacher Education and Professional Development

• The impact of teacher education programs on teacher effectiveness.
• The role of ongoing professional development in promoting teacher quality.
• The effectiveness of mentorship programs for novice teachers.
• The role of reflective practice in teacher professional development.
• The impact of teacher beliefs on teaching practices.
• The challenges of teaching in high-needs schools.
• The role of teacher collaboration in professional development.
• The effectiveness of teacher induction programs.
• The impact of teacher leadership on school improvement.
• The role of teacher autonomy in promoting job satisfaction.

9. Classroom Management

• The impact of classroom management strategies on student behavior.
• The role of positive reinforcement in promoting appropriate behavior.
• The effectiveness of classroom rules and procedures.
• The role of teacher-student relationships in classroom management.
• The impact of classroom environment on student learning.
• The challenges of managing disruptive behavior.
• The role of behavior management strategies in promoting a positive classroom climate.
• The effectiveness of conflict resolution strategies in the classroom.
• The impact of classroom management on student engagement.
• The role of classroom routines in promoting student responsibility.

10. Assessment and Evaluation

• The impact of formative assessment on student learning.
• The role of feedback in student assessment.
• The effectiveness of performance-based assessment.
• The role of self-assessment in promoting student learning.
• The impact of standardized testing on teaching and learning.
• The challenges of assessing student learning in diverse classrooms.
• The role of assessment in curriculum planning.
• The effectiveness of portfolio assessment.
• The impact of grading policies on student motivation.
• The role of assessment in identifying students at risk of academic failure.

This comprehensive list of elementary education research paper topics provides a wide range of areas to explore. Whether you’re interested in teaching methods, curriculum development, educational technology, or the social aspects of elementary education, there’s a research topic for you. Remember, the best research topic is one that you’re genuinely interested in and passionate about.

Elementary Education Research Guide

Elementary education, also known as primary education, is a crucial stage in the educational journey of a child. It is during these formative years that children acquire foundational skills in areas such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. Additionally, they develop critical thinking skills, creativity, and social competencies that are essential for their overall growth and development.

Elementary education serves as the building block for all future learning. The experiences and knowledge gained during these years can significantly influence a child’s attitude towards learning, their academic success, and their lifelong learning habits. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that children receive quality education during these years.

Research in elementary education is of paramount importance. It helps educators, policymakers, and stakeholders understand the best practices, methodologies, and strategies to enhance learning outcomes in primary education. It also provides insights into the challenges faced in elementary education and how to address them effectively.

Elementary education research paper topics can span a wide range of areas, including teaching methods, learning styles, the impact of technology on learning, educational policies, classroom management, and many more. Choosing a research topic in this field requires careful consideration of various factors, including your interests, the relevance of the topic, and the availability of resources.

In the following sections, we provide a comprehensive list of elementary education research paper topics, expert advice on choosing a topic and writing a research paper, and information about iResearchNet’s professional writing services. Whether you are a student embarking on your first research project or a seasoned researcher looking for new areas to explore, this guide is designed to assist you in your research journey.

Choosing Elementary Education Research Paper Topics

Choosing a research topic is a critical step in the research process. The topic you select will guide your study, influence the complexity and relevance of your work, and determine how engaged you are throughout the process. In the field of elementary education, there are numerous intriguing topics that can be explored. Here are some expert tips to assist you in this process:

• Understanding Your Interests: The first step in choosing a research topic is to understand your interests. What areas of elementary education fascinate you the most? Are you interested in how teaching methods influence student learning, or are you more intrigued by the role of technology in the classroom? Reflecting on these questions can help you narrow down your options and choose a topic that truly engages you. Remember, research is a time-consuming process, and your interest in the topic will keep you motivated.
• Evaluating the Scope of the Topic: Once you have identified your areas of interest, the next step is to evaluate the scope of potential elementary education research paper topics. A good research topic should be neither too broad nor too narrow. If it’s too broad, you may struggle to cover all aspects of the topic effectively. If it’s too narrow, you may have difficulty finding enough information to support your research. Try to choose a topic that is specific enough to be manageable but broad enough to have sufficient resources.
• Assessing Available Resources and Data: Before finalizing a topic, it’s important to assess the available resources and data. Are there enough academic sources, such as books, journal articles, and reports, that you can use for your research? Is there accessible data that you can analyze if your research requires it? A preliminary review of literature and data can save you from choosing a topic with limited resources.
• Considering the Relevance and Applicability of the Topic: Another important factor to consider is the relevance and applicability of the topic. Is the topic relevant to current issues in elementary education? Can the findings of your research be applied in real-world settings? Choosing a relevant and applicable topic can increase the impact of your research and make it more interesting for your audience.
• Seeking Advice: Don’t hesitate to seek advice from your professors, peers, or other experts in the field. They can provide valuable insights, suggest resources, and help you refine your topic. Discussing your ideas with others can also help you see different perspectives and identify potential issues that you may not have considered.
• Flexibility: Finally, be flexible. Research is a dynamic process, and it’s okay to modify your topic as you delve deeper into your study. You may discover new aspects of the topic that are more interesting or find that some aspects are too challenging to explore due to constraints. Being flexible allows you to adapt your research to these changes and ensure that your study is both feasible and engaging.

Remember, choosing a research topic is not a decision to be taken lightly. It requires careful consideration and planning. However, with these expert tips, you can navigate this process more effectively and choose an elementary education research paper topic that not only meets your academic requirements but also fuels your passion for learning.

How to Write an Elementary Education Research Paper

Writing a research paper is a significant academic task that requires careful planning, thorough research, and meticulous writing. In the field of elementary education, this process can be particularly challenging due to the complexity and diversity of the field. However, with the right approach and strategies, you can write a compelling and insightful research paper. Here are some expert tips to guide you through this process:

• Understanding the Structure of a Research Paper: A typical research paper includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The introduction presents your research question and its significance. The literature review provides an overview of existing research related to your topic. The methodology explains how you conducted your research. The results section presents your findings, and the discussion interprets these findings in the context of your research question. Finally, the conclusion summarizes your research and suggests areas for future research.
• Developing a Strong Thesis Statement: Your thesis statement is the central argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise, and debatable. A strong thesis statement guides your research and helps your readers understand the purpose of your paper.
• Conducting Thorough Research: Before you start writing, conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your topic. This will help you understand the current state of research in your area, identify gaps in the literature, and position your research within this context. Use academic databases to find relevant books, journal articles, and other resources. Remember to evaluate the credibility of your sources and take detailed notes to help you when writing.
• Writing and Revising Drafts: Start writing your research paper by creating an outline based on the structure of a research paper. This will help you organize your thoughts and ensure that you cover all necessary sections. Write a first draft without worrying too much about perfection. Focus on getting your ideas down first. Then, revise your draft to improve clarity, coherence, and argumentation. Make sure each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and supports your thesis statement.
• Proper Citation and Avoiding Plagiarism: Always cite your sources properly to give credit to the authors whose work you are building upon and to avoid plagiarism. Familiarize yourself with the citation style required by your institution or discipline, such as APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard. There are many citation tools available online that can help you with this.
• Seeking Feedback: Don’t hesitate to seek feedback on your drafts from your professors, peers, or writing centers at your institution. They can provide valuable insights and help you improve your paper.
• Proofreading: Finally, proofread your paper to check for any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies in formatting. A well-written, error-free paper makes a good impression on your readers and enhances the credibility of your research.
• Incorporating Elementary Education Concepts: When writing an elementary education research paper, it’s crucial to accurately incorporate elementary education concepts. Make sure you understand these concepts thoroughly and can explain them clearly in your paper. Use examples where appropriate to illustrate these concepts.
• Analyzing and Interpreting Data: If your research involves data analysis, be sure to explain your analysis process and interpret the results in a way that is understandable to your readers. Discuss the implications of your findings for the broader field of elementary education.
• Discussing Real-World Applications: Elementary education is a practical field with many real-world applications. Discuss how your research relates to these applications. This can make your research more interesting and relevant to your readers.

Remember, writing a research paper is a process that requires time, effort, and patience. Don’t rush through it.Take the time to plan your research, conduct thorough research, write carefully, and revise your work. With these expert tips, you can write an elementary education research paper that is insightful, well-structured, and contributes to the field of elementary education.

Custom Research Paper Writing Services

Writing a research paper is a significant undertaking that requires a deep understanding of the topic, strong writing skills, and the ability to conduct thorough research. At iResearchNet, we understand the challenges that students face when writing a research paper, and we are here to help. We offer a range of professional writing services designed to support students in their academic journey.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers: Our team of writers are not just experts in their respective fields, but they also hold advanced degrees. They understand the intricacies of academic writing and are adept at writing research papers in various fields, including education.
• Custom Written Works: Every research paper is unique, and we treat it as such. Our writers work closely with you to understand your specific requirements and expectations. They then craft a research paper that meets these requirements and reflects your understanding and perspective.
• In-Depth Research: A good research paper is underpinned by thorough research. Our writers conduct in-depth research using reliable and relevant sources to ensure that your paper is informative and credible.
• Custom Formatting: Formatting is an essential aspect of academic writing. Our writers are familiar with various formatting styles, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard, and can format your paper according to your preferred style.
• Top Quality: We are committed to delivering top-quality research papers. Our writers adhere to high writing standards, and our quality assurance team reviews each paper to ensure it meets these standards.
• Customized Solutions: We understand that every student has unique needs. Whether you need a research paper on a complex topic in elementary education, assistance with a specific section of your paper, or editing and proofreading services, we can provide a solution that fits your needs.
• Flexible Pricing: We believe that professional writing services should be accessible to all students. That’s why we offer flexible pricing options that cater to different budgets. We are transparent about our pricing, and there are no hidden charges.
• Short Deadlines up to 3 hours: We understand that time is of the essence when it comes to academic assignments. Our writers are skilled at working under pressure and can deliver high-quality papers within short deadlines.
• Timely Delivery: We respect your deadlines and are committed to delivering your paper on time. Our writers start working on your paper as soon as your order is confirmed, and we keep you updated on the progress of your paper.
• 24/7 Support: We believe in providing continuous support to our clients. Our customer support team is available 24/7 to answer your questions, address your concerns, and assist you with your order.
• Absolute Privacy: We respect your privacy and are committed to protecting your personal and financial information. We have robust privacy policies and security measures in place to ensure that your information is safe.
• Easy Order Tracking: We provide an easy and transparent order tracking system that allows you to monitor the progress of your paper and communicate with your writer.
• Money Back Guarantee: Your satisfaction is our top priority. If you are not satisfied with our service, we offer a money-back guarantee.

At iResearchNet, we are committed to helping you succeed in your academic journey. We understand the challenges of writing a research paper and are here to support you every step of the way. Whether you need help choosing a topic, conducting research, writing your paper, or editing and proofreading your work, our expert writers are ready to assist you. With our professional writing services, you can focus on learning and leave the stress of writing to us.

Order Your Custom Research Paper Today!

Embarking on the journey of writing a research paper can be a daunting task, especially when it comes to complex fields like elementary education. But remember, you don’t have to face this challenge alone. iResearchNet is here to provide you with the support you need to produce a high-quality, insightful, and impactful research paper.

Our team of expert degree-holding writers is ready to assist you in creating a custom-written research paper that not only meets but exceeds academic standards. Whether you’re struggling with topic selection, research, writing, or formatting, we’ve got you covered. Our comprehensive services are designed to cater to your unique needs and ensure your academic success.

Don’t let the stress of writing a research paper hinder your learning experience. Take advantage of our professional writing services and focus on what truly matters – your learning and growth. With iResearchNet, you can be confident that you’re submitting a top-quality research paper that reflects your understanding and hard work.

So, are you ready to unleash your academic potential? Order a custom education research paper on any topic from iResearchNet today. Let us help you navigate your academic journey and secure your success. Remember, your academic achievement is our top priority, and we’re committed to helping you reach your goals. Order now and experience the iResearchNet difference!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Team Teaching: A Boost to Teacher Retention

• Share article

Giving teachers more control over their collaboration with peers may boost the effectiveness of teacher teams and encourage educators to stay in the classroom.

For example, at Westwood High School in Mesa, Ariz., special education teacher Kelly Owen and four colleagues organize freshman students’ schedules, lessons, and grouping for four of the six class periods each day as part of the Next Education Workforce program.

“Before I came to Westwood, I deeply undervalued the need to work on the team, to focus on things like psychological safety, good processes for running meetings, clear expectations, good communication, even radical candor,” Owen said. “Teachers are not trained like that.”

Early results of an ongoing study of the NEW program, developed at Arizona State University, in the Mesa public schools suggest the team-teaching model gives educators flexibility to play to their strengths.

In the NEW model, groups of 100 students are assigned to teams of four to five teachers, who work together to cover core-subject areas as well as social-emotional learning. The 80,000-student Mesa district, the largest in Arizona, has expanded the teaching teams to the majority of its schools, and NEW has also expanded to schools in California and Texas.

Mary Laski, the study author and principal researcher for the Center for Reinventing Public Education at Arizona State University, found that after controlling for experience and demographics, the Mesa teachers working in teams were 9 percentage points more likely to say they planned to stay in teaching for the next five years than solo teachers. Teamed teachers were also significantly more likely than their solo peers to recommend teaching to a friend.

To put that in perspective, little more than 1 in 5 teachers said they would recommend a career in teaching in EdWeek’s The State of Teaching survey, a nationally representative poll of nearly 1,500 teachers conducted in October.

“If you join the profession as a member of a team, sharing this roster of students and having interdependency ... being a first-year teacher in that model might be wildly better ... and therefore increase our retention,” said Brent Maddin, the executive director of Next Education Workforce initiatives in Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University, but who was not a researcher on the study.

Protected time and collaboration critical

Collaboration can be one of the most effective instructional strategies, but studies find teachers often don’t have enough planning time or control over their schedules and pacing to make the model work.

“If your problem is working conditions—teachers feeling isolated or teachers seeking more collaboration and support—I think this could be an exciting way to think about it,” Laski said. “It does require some big-picture changes of how we think about what teaching looks like.”

The NEW teams don’t just meet to plan lessons and then separate into their own classrooms; from day to day, they may co-teach all together, take small groups in individual classes, or other instructional configurations. Protected, unstructured planning and collaboration time has been key to making the team teaching work.

“It’s truly the five of us in a room for 110 minutes, five days per week,” Owen said. “We spend a lot of time working on psychological safety [and] vulnerability. How do we create an atmosphere so that all five of us feel brave enough to say, ‘I need another co-teacher,’ ‘I wanna try something and I need some help doing it,’ or ‘I don’t feel comfortable doing this.’”

The teams also have significant instructional autonomy. For example, this year, the team’s math teacher moved to another school. “We went out and found [a replacement] math teacher, and our principals let us do it. It was a person who was in the building and we were like, look, she fits the vibe. She’s the person who’s gonna work well with us,” Owen said. “They had her slotted to go somewhere else and they trusted that we are building a cohesive group of adults who will be more powerful for kids.”

Laski found that team-based educators in Mesa also received higher average effectiveness ratings from their principals than solo teachers, particularly when early in their careers.

Owen agreed. While she is now in her third year teaching special education at Westwood, following a decade teaching at the college level, the team includes a nine-year veteran and others who just finished their second and third years of teaching.

“We get to bounce ideas off of each other. We all co-plan. So the amount of feedback that we’re getting on a regular basis is really increasing [teachers’] efficacy and ... skill set,” she said. Her early-career colleagues “are developing huge levels of confidence, and I see them taking on leadership that second year and third year [that] teachers just simply don’t take on,” such as developing demonstration lessons and serving as model teachers.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

latest in US News

Biden slams Trump for 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' claim trial...

Man randomly stabbed by stranger on Upper West Side while...

Experts split over whether 'hush money' guilty verdict could cost...

Smug Hillary Clinton touts 'She was right' merch after ex-rival...

Family on Disney trip terrified when bullets tear through Florida...

Drunk British man arrested for trying to open plane door...

NYC nurse fired after calling Gaza war 'genocide' during award...

Trump calls judge 'a devil,' slams Michael Cohen despite gag...

Texas elementary teacher filmed sexually explicit videos in classroom, school bathroom: report.

• View Author Archive
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

A Texas elementary school teacher is under investigation for filming sexually explicit videos of herself inside her classroom.

The woman, who has not been charged with a crime, was a music teacher at Gray Elementary in Lamar Consolidated Independent School District in Fort Bend County near Houston, according to reports.

She resigned in February for undisclosed reasons, but the school district claims it wasn’t aware of the shocking depictions until Wednesday, when the censored videos of the teacher — who is wearing her school ID in the clips — began to surface online.

The teacher can be seen flashing her bare breasts and buttocks to a camera in one video that appears to be inside the classroom. Another clip shows her stripping down similarly in a bathroom.

“It was a poor judgment on my part,” she told KHOU 11 in an interview. “I would never do it again.”

The teacher claimed she shot the videos on a Sunday when she’d stopped by the school to pick something up or in a bathroom when nobody was on campus. 

She said she only shared the videos with her ex-boyfriend, with whom she’d just had a nasty breakup.

The woman has filed a police report for possible revenge porn in Harris County, where she’s living with her parents, according to KHOU.

“I’ve never sent this out to thousands of men. Like, I’m not that type of person,” she said. “This was just a relationship, a private matter, and he released it.”

She has not been charged with any crime, but the school district has opened an investigation after community activists called out her behavior at a press conference.

Local activist Quanell X bizarrely described the video in vivid detail to reporters on Wednesday, saying the clip shows her “stripping down naked, bending over and showing you everything on the video and all you could see was cellulite and pubic hair.”

“This woman obviously had lost her damn mind. She needs psychotropic medication. She pulls out her breasts and she’s juggling them — look like she’s about to fall over. Then she bends over and pulls down her panties,” X added.

He said she should never be allowed around children again.

LCISD parent Barbara Villareal told KHOU she was appalled by the display.

Share this article:

Advertisement

UCCS Community

• Current Students
• Faculty Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families

Schools and Colleges

• College of Business

College of Education

• College of Engineering and Applied Science
• College of Letters, Arts & Sciences
• College of Public Service
• Graduate School
• Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing and Health Sciences

Quick Links

• Search for Programs & Careers
• Academic Advising
• Ent Center for the Arts
• Kraemer Family Library
• Military and Veteran Affairs
• myUCCS Portal
• Campus Email
• Microsoft 365
• Mountain Lion Connect
• Support Network: Students
• Support Network: Faculty
• Account Help
• About Faculty & Staff Events News Accreditation
• Academics Undergraduate Graduate
• Research & Initiatives Campus Connections Office of Inclusive Services Teacher Apprenticeship
• Resources Future Students Current Students Alumni & Community Scholarships

Teacher Apprenticeship

Teacher apprenticeship at uccs.

"Students need qualified teachers who are prepared to teach them, and who reflect the diversity of our students. Teachers need affordable pathways into the profession. Registered teacher apprenticeship programs allow individuals – including those already working in schools, like teaching assistants – to earn while they learn, receiving pay while they gain teaching skills with the supervision of a mentor teacher, and take coursework to earn their teaching license. This allows teachers to gain robust experience in the classroom before leading their own, and makes becoming a teacher more affordable." (Biden-Harris, August 31, 2022)

Inclusive Early Childhood Education

UCCS sponsors registered apprenticeships in early childhood education and in early childhood special education. We work with a variety of employers to support apprentices in the early childhood education space.

Elementary and Secondary Education

UCCS serves as a related instruction provider for several school districts and BOCES with teacher apprenticeships to support paraprofessionals, substitute teachers, and coaches who desire to obtain a teaching license.

Want to know more about Teacher Apprenticeship at UCCS? Contact us! [email protected]

Mission Statement

The College of Education at UCCS is committed to diversifying the teacher workforce and removing barriers to entry to the teaching profession We strive to meet the staffing needs of our district and community partners, and to develop quality educators by providing a more collaborative and cost-effective pathway to the teaching profession.

Helpful Links

Our partners.

Teacher Apprenticeship Sponsor - Coaching - Consulting (TASCC)

Pikes Peak BOCES

Teacher Degree Apprenticeship Programs (Colorado Department of Education)

Apprenticeship Colorado

Victims of Hampden Catholic school teacher seek accountability: ‘A breach of trust’

E rin Maze and Shannon Conway are no longer the children who walked the halls of St. Thomas Aquinas Elementary School in their Catholic school uniforms two decades ago. 

Maze, 32, is an outgoing lawyer and parent who talks quickly and laughs easily. Her shyer friend Conway, 31, works in political science and has a skill for diligent research.

Both women still live in Baltimore, not far from where they grew up. They share love for their respective cats, grief for a mutual friend who was killed years ago and complicated memories of the now-closed Hampden school where they were students of David A. Czajkowski, a lay teacher convicted of sexually abusing students. 

Maze and Conway are speaking out publicly for the first time about their experiences. The women submitted claims before Friday’s deadline in the bankruptcy case of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, which does not include Czajkowski on its list of credibly accused priests and lay teachers.

“Despite them adding lay teachers, and despite him being convicted, he is not on that list,” Conway said in an interview with The Baltimore Sun. “And I don’t know why.”

Although a law that took effect in October made it possible for people to sue institutions for child abuse no matter when it happened, the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy, funneling any claims against the church though that money-oriented process. 

A Maryland attorney general’s 2023 report on decades of sex abuse in the archdiocese also did not list Czajkowski. His name is included in a statewide database The Sun published in December. 

The women hope that by sharing their stories — including memories they have come to fully understand only recently — they can gain greater accountability for the harm they say shaped a generation of students. They also seek to enlighten parents about the subtle forms that child abuse and manipulation can take. 

“I just want the truth, as much of it as I can get,” Conway said. “I don’t want this to happen to other people.”

Christian Kendzierski, an archdiocese spokesperson, said the archdiocese and its Independent Review Board, starting in 2002, has listed priests and brothers “because of the particularly important role they play in our churches.” The archdiocese, he said, publicizes credible allegations against lay employees in other ways, reports allegations against them to authorities and removes them from employment.

“The use of our list to highlight abuse by priests and brothers in no way minimizes the horrendous abuse committed by others,” Kendzierski wrote in an email to The Sun. “The Archdiocese has repeatedly spoken publicly about Czajkowski, calling his behavior ‘reprehensive’ and adding that his ‘subsequent conviction and prison sentence are the proper consequences for his actions.’”

A spokesperson said the attorney general’s office cannot comment on the inclusion or noninclusion of specific individuals in its report, but investigators still are reviewing information they received from survivors after the report’s release. 

Czajkowski was charged with molesting 11 students and pleaded guilty in 2002 to three counts of sex abuse, receiving a five-year prison sentence. Each time a reporter visited the Baltimore County home that state real estate records say is his primary residence, the former teacher did not answer the door. Nor did Czajkowski, 60, respond to notes seeking comment.

The year Czajkowski was convicted, 2002, marked a turning point for the Catholic Church in the United States, as The Boston Globe revealed  the scope of the cover-up of clergy sex abuse and church leadership put in place stronger reporting and prevention procedures.

But even as decades-old abuse came to light elsewhere, the alumni of St. Thomas in North Baltimore, now adults reaching their early 30s, suffered new and lasting trauma.

Multiple children reported abuse to school leaders before Czajkowski was fired, according to lawsuits brought by students’ families. In May 2002, a few months after the teacher’s arrest and in anticipation of new “zero-tolerance” policies, church officials asked the Rev. William Simms, who had admitted to previous abuse, to move out of the parish rectory that shared a campus with the school.

One afternoon earlier this year, Maze returned to the brick building near “The Avenue” in Hampden that once held the parish school of about 200 students. She pointed at the second-floor windows of the former school — the classroom where Czajkowski taught. 

Simms lived in the home attached to the church, with windows overlooking the parking lot where children played at recess. Students were frequently sent to the rectory to run errands, Maze and Conway said. 

Having been granted immunity from prosecution in the 1980s through an agreement with Anne Arundel County, Simms had been living in the rectory since 1992 .

To the two women, Czajkowski’s abuse and Simms’ presence in their parish together showed a “breach of trust.”

“I feel disappointed that someone like him was also in our midst during our childhood,” Conway said of Simms. “It feels creepy. It feels avoidable.”

Maryland Catholic Church abuse database: Search the list

The survivors

Like many of the families of pupils at the now-shuttered school, Maze and Conway’s parents worked blue-collar jobs, proudly saving up to put their kids through Catholic school.

The Sun does not identify victims of sex abuse without their consent. Conway and Maze agreed to be named for this article. Baltimore-based Jenner Law represents them and three other victims of Czajkowski, attorney Elisha Hawk said. 

The two girls were a grade level apart — Maze is a year older — but their families knew each other through Hampden’s close-knit Catholic community. 

In an interview at the Jenner Law offices in January, Maze flipped through yearbooks from the late ’90s and early 2000s of smiling kids in uniforms, while Conway spoke with emotion about what she’s learned about Czajkowski and Simms.

In part because of the toll the abuse took on her, Maze never wanted biological children of her own, but now she’s raising her cousin’s 5-year-old. She grapples with how to protect her child without passing along the anxiety she feels.

“It makes me a bit of a crazy parent,” she admitted. 

Similarly, Conway long struggled to trust men and worked hard to avoid a trap of relying on substances to cope. The two women grew closer in 2010, when their 19-year-old friend and classmate Patrick Dolan was killed in an attempted robbery

As the end of the attorney general’s four-year investigation into the archdiocese approached, they began to talk about their shared experiences in Czajkowski’s classes, including bizarre reenactments of “slave auctions,” which came with the physical “inspection” of student’s bodies.

“We were all suffering in silos, thinking the same thing, and 22 years later, you start calling friends and you’re hesitant,” Conway said. “You’re like, ‘Hey, I kind of want to talk to you about something,’ and what you realize is that no one forgets about it.”

Over the next 20 years, many in their 4th and 5th grade classes suffered lasting issues like substance abuse and early pregnancies, Conway and Maze said. Although such setbacks were impossible to trace to a single cause, both wonder if the abuse contributed. 

Research shows that survivors of childhood sex abuse are more likely to suffer with mental health issues like depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, and engage in risky sexual behaviors, self-harm and disordered eating. They also can be more prone to conditions like heart disease, irritable bowel syndrome and some cancers.

“Our childhood was destroyed,” Conway said. “Our innocence was gone, our trust in people. I think a lot of us were tormented for years.”

‘Abuse comes in all forms’

When Maze’s parents first asked her if Czajkowski touched her inappropriately, she told them that he tucked her shirt into her sweatpants once and adjusted her Peter Pan-style uniform collar. 

However, different memories began to return years later in 2017, the year Maze was assaulted while working at a bar and Netflix released “The Keepers” documentary. It detailed abuse by A. Joseph Maskell, a priest at Seton Keogh High School in Southwest Baltimore.

She remembered that Czajkowski abused her at his home, Maze said, after her mom brought her to go swimming with the teacher and his son and left for about an hour. 

Conway’s experience with Czajkowski was different, she said. A good student who didn’t make waves, she said she suffered mental abuse and grooming at St. Thomas. She sat in her teacher’s lap daily, as he whispered how special she was and how he loved her differently than other people, Conway said. 

Related Articles

• Local News | Deadline nears for victims to file in Catholic Church case: ‘A survivor’s last chance’
• Local News | Clergy abuse survivors testify in Catholic church bankruptcy case: ‘Do you see me now?’
• Local News | A Catholic deacon preyed on a boy. Now in prison, the victim files in church’s bankruptcy.
• Local News | ‘Soul murder’: Clergy abuse survivors testify about torment in Baltimore archdiocese bankruptcy case
• Local News | Archbishop Lori on the testimony of victim-survivors | VIDEO

“What I want people to know is that abuse comes in all forms,” Conway said. “I think it’s important for people to ask your kids, ‘OK, when you’re around this teacher, what are your daily interactions like?’” Conway said. “’Does he ask you to keep secrets? How often? Does his body come into contact with yours? Does he have weird nicknames for you? Does he tell you that you can’t talk to certain friends?’”

At least seven families settled lawsuits against the archdiocese and Czajkowski in 2003, according to court records. Conway and Maze were not among them, although Conway said her family filed a claim for therapy costs a few years later. 

The family of a 9-year-old girl who reported Czajkowski began molesting her in 2001 brought one lawsuit, which it settled for $110,000. Attorneys for the family wrote that two other 4th graders reported abuse to the principal months before the girl came forward.

The principal told one student in late 2001 that the teacher was on employee probation and that she “needn’t worry further,” according to the complaint. 

The girl, now an adult, said in an interview with The Sun that the abuse’s impact sent her on a self-destructive path as a teen, including becoming pregnant at 15 by someone else.

She said that after improbably being named the honor roll in 4th grade, despite being mostly absent from school, she felt teachers treated her differently for missteps in 5th grade and middle school.

Maze and Conway said students whose families filed civil lawsuits were singled out by school staff over the next few years. 

“I was always in trouble,” the woman said. “It was like there was an X on my back and they all just kind of would jump on me for everything.” 

She said the staff appeared scared that she would speak about the abuse in class.

“They almost treated me like I was a liability,” she said. “If I opened my mouth to say anything and I was upset, they would send me out of the classroom.” 

With wider Catholic Church abuse probe, Maryland attorney general seeks to add staff

Seeing it in print

Last spring, Conway was optimistic. She expected to see Czajkowski’s name in the attorney general’s report, given his conviction. She hoped that the report, which covered six decades of abuse in much of Maryland, would bring information to light or at least affirm the experiences of those who didn’t want their pain to be forgotten.

“’Maybe this report will tell me something I don’t know, or will confirm what I do know, but it’ll be in print,’” Conway told herself.

Conway praised the investigation for the scope of abuse it captured, but she and Maze were disappointed they didn’t see Czajkowski’s name in the report.

“When it wasn’t,” Conway said, “I felt like I had to do all this research.” Without her ordeal reflected in the record, she felt like “a dog with a bone.”

She began filing public records requests, contacting reporters and researching information about Czajkowski. He’s not currently listed on Maryland’s sex offender registry, although his plea agreement required registration. That disturbs Conway, Maze and the woman who reported abuse as a 9-year-old.

At the time of his 2002 conviction, the maximum length of registration for many sex offenses was 10 years.

The archdiocese’s decision to file for bankruptcy last fall felt like another blow for Conway and Maze because the process barred further lawsuits against the archdiocese. Maze was frustrated when she thought she had lost the chance to testify against Czajkowski and saw the bankruptcy as a silencing “brick wall.” 

“We both felt so many doors slamming in our face, so many shutdowns,” Maze said. “The first one was, of course, him not being in the report.”

Still, Conway said, if telling her story publicly means another former student or someone with a similar experience feels seen, it would have been worth bringing up the painful memories. 

“If one person reads this, whether they were in our class or somewhere across the city in another school and they identify with it, I think that that’s enough,” she said. “Nobody should feel alone in this.”

The Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center, a survivor organization that offers advocacy services, legal assistance and other support to victims of crime, can be reached at 301-952-0063. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests lists its local chapters at https://www.snapnetwork.org.

©2024 Baltimore Sun. Visit baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

• Publications
• Conferences & Events
• Professional Learning
• Science Standards
• Awards & Competitions
• Instructional Materials
• Free Resources
• American Rescue Plan
• For Preservice Teachers
• NCCSTS Case Collection
• Science and STEM Education Jobs
• Interactive eBooks+
• Digital Catalog
• Regional Product Representatives
• e-Newsletters
• Bestselling Books
• Latest Books
• Popular Book Series
• Prospective Authors
• Web Seminars
• Exhibits & Sponsorship
• Conference Reviewers
• National Conference • Denver 24
• Leaders Institute 2024
• National Conference • New Orleans 24
• Submit a Proposal
• Latest Resources
• Professional Learning Units & Courses
• For Districts
• Online Course Providers
• Schools & Districts
• College Professors & Students
• The Standards
• Teachers and Admin
• eCYBERMISSION
• Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision
• Junior Science & Humanities Symposium
• Teaching Awards
• Climate Change
• Earth & Space Science
• New Science Teachers
• Early Childhood
• Middle School
• High School
• Postsecondary
• Informal Education
• Journal Articles
• Lesson Plans
• e-newsletters
• Science & Children
• Science Scope
• The Science Teacher
• Journal of College Sci. Teaching
• Connected Science Learning
• NSTA Reports
• Next-Gen Navigator
• Science Update
• Teacher Tip Tuesday
• Trans. Sci. Learning

MyNSTA Community

• My Collections

Freebies and Opportunities for Science and STEM Teachers, June 4, 2024

By Debra Shapiro

Share Start a Discussion

Freebies for Science and STEM Teachers: Elementary Level

Streams of Data Earth Science Unit for Grade 4 Streams of Data is a five-day lesson sequence that uses the phenomenon of flash flooding—namely, a specific flash flooding event that occurred in Ellicott City, Maryland—to engage fourth-grade students in learning science using real-world data. The materials, developed collaboratively by the Education Development Center (EDC)’s Oceans of Data Institute and the American Geosciences Institute (AGI), give students opportunities to deepen their analytical skills as they work with data from a real-world event. Through the unit, students learn how to connect data with real-world events, consider the impact of data sources and limitations, and support arguments/conclusions with evidence. 

Teachers can access a lesson plan PDF of the unit, which outlines each day of the learning sequence. Supplementary materials support unit implementation, including links to data sources, information about creating data representations such as the hydrographs, the setup and use of stream tables, and more. 

Freebies for Science and STEM Teachers: Middle Level

Loudspeakers, PA Systems, and the Wall of Sound This Next Generation Science Standards –based lesson for the middle level developed by TeachRock.org explores how Public Address (PA) systems work. After learning about the components of a PA system through images and videos, students create a working loudspeaker in class. Students also learn about the Grateful Dead’s pioneering “Wall of Sound,” which led to changes into how live sound technology is produced and to greatly improved sound at concerts and other large-scale events. Lesson materials include an online teacher guide with relevant videos, images, student handouts, extension activities, career connections, and NGSS information.

Freebies for Science and STEM Teachers: High School and College

Mini-Unit: Pacific H2O—A Choose-Your-Own STEM Adventure This mini-unit for grades nine through university level from Galactic Polymath—an education studio that translates current research into open access lessons—was developed with an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural team at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. It covers the science and engineering practices behind treating water, as well as English language arts and social studies, as students learn about the cultural touchpoints of Pacific Island Countries. Students will embody an engineer's mindset as they learn about the cultural significance of engineering clean water in Pacific Island Countries. The mini-unit, which requires about four 45-minute lessons, includes a choose-your-own adventure chemistry lab, as well as engaging videos about how to perform lab procedures and the science behind treatment techniques.

Opportunity for Grades K–12

Teachers on the Estuary Training Workshops   A Teachers on the Estuary (TOTE) workshop is a research and field-based training program held at various research reserve sites. TOTE workshops offer a minimum of 15 contact hours, giving teachers the opportunity to explore coastal habitats and conduct field investigations; interact with local scientists and experienced coastal educators; integrate local and national monitoring data into the classroom; and learn hands-on field activities highlighting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System’s Estuary Education Resources . Workshops will be held in June, July, and August.

Opportunity for Elementary and Middle Level

Camp Invention Connect Camp Invention Connect ® offers children in grades K–6 the opportunity to attend virtual national editions of Camp Invention’s STEM enrichment camp. Camp Invention is a program of the National Inventors Hall of Fame® in partnership with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Making the program even more accessible for families who do not have a local program in their area or those who have local camp scheduling conflicts, a health concern, or children with needs that make an online experience more preferable than an in-person program, Camp Invention Connect makes it possible for kids across the United States to connect, collaborate, and create. Led by qualified educators, participating children will have five full days of creative problem-solving challenges and can make new friends as they join their fellow campers for optional collaborative sessions throughout each day. The program balances active, independent hands-on exploration with opportunities for socialization from home.

Camps will run throughout June and July. An Innovator’s Toolkit filled with materials is shipped directly to each participant. Kids prepare to invent as they receive their very own Innovator Workshop to set up at home. Daily challenges can motivate kids to explore nature, get active, and stretch their imaginations. The program also offers step-by-step activity guides and digital resources. Watch a preview of the curriculum at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae9pIqesaI4 .

Opportunity for High School

Polar Science Curriculum Development Workshop for Educators The University of Maine, Orono, in collaboration with the National Science Foundation, will hold a week-long (July 29–August 2) in-person workshop focused on developing engaging classroom lessons using real-world polar science data. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for STEM educators from across the United States to collaborate with colleagues, gain valuable professional development, and contribute to the advancement of Polar STEM education. This initiative aims to cultivate student interest in Polar STEM careers, particularly among underrepresented groups. Workshop goals include

•    Equipping educators with the necessary tools and resources to create impactful Polar STEM lessons; •    Exploring environmental and climate change issues in the Polar regions; and •    Fostering connections between Polar observations and local community experiences.

Participants will be asked to join this three-year project. 11th- and 12th-grade teachers who are currently teaching Earth science or related classes and are interested in incorporating and/or improving polar science lessons are eligible to apply. (Deadline: June 10 ) All travel, lodging, stipend, and per diem will be covered for travel to Orono, Maine, this summer. Additionally, participants will earn a stipend of $30 per hour over the course of the workshop (7 hours per day for five days), as well as for virtual check-in meetings twice a year.

Careers Chemistry Climate Change Distance Learning Earth & Space Science Environmental Science General Science Instructional Materials Interdisciplinary Lesson Plans News Phenomena Professional Learning Science and Engineering Practices STEM Teaching Strategies Kindergarten Elementary Middle School High School Postsecondary

California school district investigating after teacher seen in video apparently mocking students

SANTA ANA, Calif. -- The Santa Ana, California Unified School District has opened an investigation after footage emerged of an elementary teacher apparently mocking children inside a classroom for students with special needs.

Video shows a teacher at Carver Elementary School confront a student and repeatedly tap scissors on the desk.

"Don't even think you're not going to do work. Do you understand?" the teacher said in a raised voice to the student.

Attorney Elan Zektser, who represents six families with children in the teacher's current class, claims threats of legal action several years ago led the school district to relocate the teacher to Carver Elementary.

"The families should have never had to discover this video in the first place," Zektser said. "The problem is that the school district was well aware for many, many years that this teacher had been verbally abusing, neglecting the special needs children of the community."

One of the students accidentally recorded the teacher in the classroom for about half of the day on an iPad, Zektser said. The footage has now led to an investigation.

"One of the mothers who was suspicious about what was happening in the classroom reviewed the videotape and then shared it in the close-knit community," Zektser said.

SEE ALSO: New Jersey mother accuses teacher's aide of pulling out daughter's hair, ripping her braid off

Angelica Gurrola's 9-year-old son, who is nonverbal, is seen in another clip getting confronted by the teacher. The teacher is seen getting in the student's face, and appears to yell at him.

"As a mother, it deeply broke my heart. It hurts when I remember it. It will continue to hurt," Gurrola said in Spanish as she fought back tears.

Gurrola said the teacher contributed to her son's verbal regression and troubling changes in his behavior.

"He would wake up crying in the middle of the night, saying 'teacher, teacher,'" she recalled.

Santa Ana Unified released a statement in response to the claims that said in part:

"The safety and well-being of our students are our highest priorities. We have initiated a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the incident and will take all necessary actions based on our findings."

Gurrola called for the teacher and the school's principal to be removed.

Zektser said if action isn't taken, then they will move forward with filing a lawsuit.

The children currently have a substitute teacher.

Related Topics

• DISABILITY ISSUES
• U.S. & WORLD

Gifts for teachers they will actually love

Val Warner hands out 'Abbott Elementary' lunch boxes to teachers

West suburban teacher receives Illinois' Teacher of the Year award

Gov. Abbott proposes ban on gender-nonconforming behavior in schools

Top stories.

South Side standoff ends; Suspect shoots self, sources say

• 2 hours ago

Illinois politicians condemn, support Trump after guilty verdict

Chicago couple encourages Black travelers to explore outdoors

Woman speaks out after being shot by neighbor in alleged hate crime

Infant dead after family dog attacked him in crib, family says

• 13 minutes ago

After conviction, Trump says appeal is ahead

Billionaire plans to voyage to Titanic 1 year after OceanGate accident

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin registers as an independent