View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Controversies behind COVID Learning Loss: Historical Issues, Current Measurements, and Future Strategies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Controversies behind COVID Learning Loss: Historical Issues, Current Measurements, and Future Strategies
Language: English
Authors: Zhang, Qiyang (ORCID 0000-0001-7474-2435), Storey, Nathan (ORCID 0000-0003-1756-5529)
Source: Theory Into Practice. 2022 61(3):300-311.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2022
Intended Audience: Practitioners
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: COVID-19, Pandemics, Achievement Gains, Achievement Gap, Educational Methods
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380
ISSN: 0040-5841
1543-0421
Abstract: COVID learning loss has sparked fierce debate among stakeholders in education. There are debates among concerned educators about ways to understand learning loss reports, methods to measure learning loss, and strategies to recover from learning loss. In this article, we unpack opposing perspectives on these three controversies with the goal of extracting useful recommendations to guide post-pandemic education revival. Drawing from structural inequity theory, this article reviews the controversies through historical, current, and future lenses respectively: (1) Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss? (2) Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately? and (3) Which recovery plans should we prioritize to address COVID learning loss? Within each controversy, the article makes suggestions on how practitioners may make sense of each controversy and integrate take-aways from them into their work.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1365649
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFrrSBzzXazjZvt8MHgCIh2AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBdhBZaXQwMaeYIDzAIBEICBm6FyMHpqGaMGl37pVdTTlP5cy3y5vgpbQX3rfn-RuodIlwJIDZ0pXpCklMSDZhYMvneLK09rnijqSN_M2N5OEgoUHRpU0dhwrTm1zPJkTmBflMC6V_VdbQbyy28PFBoIQBDY3xnYvklkz4yG7y5pNEzVy_1usC_5e-PV7W9u_qjd1oBuA_mHuaYywCBJUoh35fIxZvumtm9DS68O
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158753265;tip01jun.22;2022Aug30.04:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158753265-1">Controversies behind COVID learning loss: Historical issues, current measurements, and future strategies </title> <p>COVID learning loss has sparked fierce debate among stakeholders in education. There are debates among concerned educators about ways to understand learning loss reports, methods to measure learning loss, and strategies to recover from learning loss. In this article, we unpack opposing perspectives on these three controversies with the goal of extracting useful recommendations to guide post-pandemic education revival. Drawing from structural inequity theory, this article reviews the controversies through historical, current, and future lenses respectively: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately? and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) Which recovery plans should we prioritize to address COVID learning loss? Within each controversy, the article makes suggestions on how practitioners may make sense of each controversy and integrate take-aways from them into their work.</p> <p>Research and practice concerning "COVID learning loss"[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>] has been a topic of fierce debate. Educators have worried about learning loss since the early days of the pandemic as schools abruptly shut down and students struggled to engage with teachers and curriculum online (Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]). However, disagreements remain regarding the interpretation of learning loss reports, accuracy of learning loss estimates, and strategies to ameliorate students' learning challenges (Zhao, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref6">38</reflink>]). Responding to COVID learning loss has become one of the greatest modern challenges for researchers, educators, and policymakers.</p> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the systemic disparities in education and the unique challenges faced by communities of color, low socioeconomic status communities, and other marginalized and minoritized populations. Structural inequity theory provides a theoretical framework to analyze these disparities, which states that educational stratification is deeply rooted in the hierarchically and socially constructed social systems with a pattern of differential distribution of resources and opportunities (Sullivan & Artiles, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]). These disparities create an "opportunity gap," which researchers advocate should be the focus of educational interventions and support (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]). Drawing from this theoretical perspective to inform our understanding of the impact of COVID on the education system, we examine three controversial debates about COVID learning loss and provide recommendations for practitioners.</p> <p>In our first section, we explore the existing research and historical understanding of differential learning loss, and consider the benefits and drawbacks of emphasizing learning loss to understand student development, in order to ascertain whether we should put a spotlight on differential COVID learning loss. Understanding that the inequitable distribution of resources to different socio-economic and racial groups is a historical and systemic problem can change the way we view learning loss and design solutions.</p> <p>In our second section, we shift our focus to assessing the common methodologies currently being used to measure COVID learning loss. Measurements of COVID learning loss carry some noteworthy limitations, both inherent to standardized testing in general and during the COVID era in particular. Considering these limitations informs the ways practitioners can become aware of the quality of data and interpret research with caution.</p> <p>Finally, we use our current understanding of the impact of COVID on student learning to look to the future, and debate whether certain recovery plans should be prioritized over others in addressing learning loss. We attempt to resolve the arguments supporting different recovery initiatives, which can guide practitioners and school leaders to better address students' holistic and long-term needs. By unpacking these three key controversies, the article aims to explore how analyzing different relevant perspectives could guide learning loss recovery in the post-pandemic world.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-2">Controversy 1: Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss?</hd> <p>Before discussing COVID learning loss measurement or recovery plans, it is imperative to determine whether the concept of COVID learning loss should be considered at all, given the sometimes controversial history of learning loss research. Though learning loss discussions typically have a deficit orientation and findings of differential learning loss could be used to stigmatize certain groups, analyzing this issue through a historical lens and through our use of a structural inequity theoretical framework could lend us new perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-3">Potential pitfalls of highlighting learning loss due to COVID</hd> <p>Some educational stakeholders claim that focusing on COVID learning loss is dangerous because concentrating too closely on disproportionate learning loss may demoralize or even stigmatize those students who struggled long before the pandemic started and were harmed the most by the pandemic (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]), which are those from historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups. After experiencing grueling hardship and traumatic events brought about by the pandemic, publicizing and broadcasting the message to emotionally-exhausted students and their parents that they are falling behind academically is simply not helpful. This stigmatization may deepen negative stereotypes, escalate discrimination, and further marginalize the students who struggled the most during the pandemic. This in turn may further their disengagement with schooling and limit schools' ability to support recovery efforts. Any discussion of learning loss in the COVID context must therefore be handled with care and sensitivity.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-4">Potential benefits of understanding the impact of COVID through learning loss</hd> <p>Despite concerns that discussions of differential COVID learning loss statistics might stigmatize some students and parents, structural and racial inequity is an unavoidable, recurring, and systemic issue described in educational research. Forgoing any discussion of differential COVID learning loss would prevent any effort to effectively alleviate these systemic problems. After all, disparities between racial and income groups have long existed. Researchers and practitioners did not discover the disparate impact of the education system when the pandemic began. Rather, conversations regarding differential COVID learning loss are a continuation of the important discussion over the entrenched problems in our education system and society. Housing, transportation, well-being, and employment disparities are not new and have created differential educational opportunities throughout U.S. history. Understanding how these inequities were worsened by school closures shines a light on issues related to reliance on non-academic services and the digital divide.</p> <p>Long before the pandemic, summer learning loss researchers (Shinwell & Defeyter, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]) asserted that students with lower levels of social and cultural capital tended to lose more learning opportunities during school closures. Sewell et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]) educational attainment theory posits that students' educational outcomes are impacted by three significant external influences: family, teachers, and friends. Lockdowns and home quarantine inevitably shifted influence from teachers and schoolmates to family only, which allowed an accelerated intergenerational transmission of social, economic, and cultural capital to children. However, this shift in influence also widened the opportunity gap. In contrast to their wealthier peers who received a combination of access to better remote-learning technology and support from highly-educated parents, disadvantaged and vulnerable students from working-class families were more reliant on school-issued devices and were hurt more due to scarcity of community resources (Meeter, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]). Social gaps widened with school closures, which deprive disadvantaged students of access to important non-academic resources, including free and reduced-price meals, healthcare support, library resources, study rooms and equipment, counseling, and tutoring (Di Pietro et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]). On top of that, marginalized communities also suffer from greater health and social risk factors, including higher rates of COVID hospitalization and death, housing instability, employment concerns, and food insecurities (Egede & Walker, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]). These stressors not only threaten to inhibit learning abilities, but also increase stress, depression, and anxiety, which further harm students' overall well-being (Singh et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref15">32</reflink>]). Based on these realities, the natural next step is to consider how practitioners may understand COVID learning loss.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-5">Recommendations for practitioners</hd> <p>The conversation regarding COVID-related differential learning loss should be seen as a starting point to address disparities in student circumstances caused by social reproduction and societal inequities. However, there are 3 pitfalls that we may want to avoid. First, in the name of designing targeted solutions, there is a compulsion to sort students into different categories for differentiated learning to remediate COVID learning loss. Labeling students or grouping students according to their measured achievement levels could propel these perceptions to eventually become self-fulfilling prophecies (Eder, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the recent focus on COVID-related learning loss overlooks the systemic and historical issues underlying differentiated access to resources and opportunity gaps in the education system. A narrow focus on COVID learning loss could mistakenly lead practitioners to design short-term remedial strategies while distracting them from the fact that the increasing equity gaps are systemic issues, which require long-term and sustainable interventions that create a closer home-school nexus.</p> <p>Third, it is easy to blame learning loss on teachers' inexperienced pedagogies during remote instruction or burden practitioners further with extra tasks. Researchers' recommendations, policymakers' financial support and strong leadership, practitioners' implementation, and parents' cooperation are all of vital importance. Recovering from the pandemic losses will require time, patience, resilience and concerted efforts. The pandemic, without minimizing the very real trauma and destruction it wrought, highlighted and exacerbated the entrenched problems enmeshed in the U.S. education system already causing disparities in educational opportunities. Post-pandemic rebuilding efforts should therefore grab this unprecedented opportunity to address historical issues and should be as far-sighted and sustainable as possible.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-6">Controversy 2: Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately?</hd> <p>Although the concept of differential COVID learning loss remains controversial due to its connection to historical and systemic inequity, and perhaps the overly-political discourse related to all things COVID, learning loss measures still provide a useful framework for understanding the impact of COVID on students. We move to a more practical question: Are we measuring COVID learning loss in an appropriate way? What is the most valid, reliable, and holistic means of measuring COVID learning loss? How should we interpret COVID learning loss measurements given the understanding that differential learning loss is related to the inequitable distribution of resources as a function of race and socioeconomic status?</p> <p>While COVID learning loss measurement has evolved from projections to measurement with real data over the last 2 years, the reliability of such measurements still attracts debate. In 2020, due to lack of live data, researchers used out-of-school time due to absenteeism, summer vacation, or weather-related school closures to model and predict potential COVID learning loss (Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]). By 2021, more studies using real data emerged and reported that young, low-income, and minority students suffered disproportionately from pandemic-related academic losses (Raymond et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]). While some researchers sought to closely measure COVID learning loss and make data-driven recommendations to practitioners (Amplify, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]), others have argued that the true and long-term impact of the pandemic on learning and lifetime outcomes cannot be measured so easily and may not be currently visible (Domingue et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]). These issues suggest it is necessary to understand how we measure and use learning loss measurements, and how these choices impact practitioners and students.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-7">Issues with current COVID learning loss measurements</hd> <p>Recent COVID learning loss research often relied on standardized assessments such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment, i-Ready assessment, and Renaissance STAR (Storey & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]). Standardized assessments have been criticized for sampling biases, as well as their limited capacity to assess students' true ability (Renaissance Learning, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]). Since standardized assessment scores only reflect the performance of the students who attend scheduled examinations, vulnerable students who were absent from exam days during the pandemic are more likely to be ignored (Engzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]). Given the higher risks of infection and unemployment, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to miss classes or exams, making the samples used to measure COVID learning loss prone to selection bias (Kuhfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]). This systematic inequity inherent in the data used to understand learning loss may lead to the underestimation of the impact of certain trends, such as COVID-19 and mismanagement of resources or efforts to address learning loss.</p> <p>Another limitation of the reliance on score-based learning loss measures is that the overwhelming focus on math and reading measurements could obscure actual progress in other domains that students have made despite the overwhelming challenges they faced. A focus on standardized testing, with a scope often limited to mathematics and reading, can hardly reflect students' progress in areas that are not traditionally tested or things that cannot be learned within physical classrooms (Zhao, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]). In addition, these critiques raise the question of whether measures of learning loss, including differential COVID learning loss, are truly measuring growth or loss of ability or merely achievement.</p> <p>Although cognitive growth is arguably the main educational goal of schools, students' physical and psychological development are equally or even more essential dimensions of learning. Being forced to adapt to changing public health guidelines and modes of learning could equip students with flexibility, resilience, and grit, which are essential life skills for future success (Duckworth, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]). In addition, students may have gained knowledge and competencies related to public health, vaccines, education technology, or politics, among other areas through discourse in the media (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Test scores only reflect academic skills or test-taking ability. They fail to account for absent students and unobserved areas of gains, which introduces bias in learning loss measurements. These limitations should be understood fully and taken into account when attempting to create or use measures of COVID learning loss.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-8">Benefits of current COVID learning loss measurements</hd> <p>Proponents of learning loss measurements insist that although standardized testing is not a holistic measurement able to truly reflect student ability, it still serves an important function as an indicator of students' academic achievement (Wedenoja, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]), which is easily understood by researchers, policymakers, educators, and parents alike. In 2021, the Biden administration rejected most states' requests to cancel state tests, arguing that the data points which these tests generate could reveal key insights to help policymakers develop targeted interventions to accelerate learning (Blad & Ujifusa, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Among various types of testing, diagnostic tests, which identify each student's specific areas of weakness and strength, seem like the perfect candidate to gather information on students' achievement with the intention of intervention designs. The ideal intention of implementing short diagnostic tests to measure COVID learning loss is neither to punish students who struggle nor to hold educators accountable for any students not reaching a certain level, but to help provide educators a cross-sectional snapshot of the pandemic's effect on learning. Having a grasp of this landscape is more important than ever, given that federal testing requirements were suspended in the first year of the pandemic (Barnum, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]). Without measurement, any interventions are just a shot in the dark, despite being well-intentioned.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-9">Recommendations for practitioners</hd> <p>Understanding the limitations of these measurements can facilitate practitioners' awareness of the shortcomings and pitfalls of standardized testing and proceed to interpret reports measuring COVID learning loss with caution. All tests are imperfect, but some are more useful than others to inform post-pandemic policymakers and practitioners. In particular, we believe that short diagnostic testing can serve recovery purposes better than norm-referenced or criterion-referenced standardized testing. For example, the i-Ready diagnostic test and Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) are 2 types of progress-monitoring tests. These types of short-term diagnostic tests can help teachers adjust lesson plans accordingly, identify specific help-needed areas, and assist administrators to make informed decisions to promote a child's academic growth. However, education stakeholders should also be cautious of the problem of overtesting, which may lead to student fatigue and anxiety (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]). Designing these assessments in a formative rather than summative manner could build an iterative process to identify and address issues in education by drafting needs-based solutions (Wedenoja, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although some tests are useful in providing information to practitioners, it is worthwhile for practitioners to note that structural inequity still plagues the reliability of exams. Students are not missing from the findings at random: Marginalized and vulnerable students are more likely to be absent compared to their privileged peers. School leaders may want to pay particular attention to students who are frequently absent from schools and provide wrap-around services in time to encourage school attendance as well as persistence. In schools where attendance is not regularly recorded, tests could be used to provide valuable information on the missing students and serve as an indicator of who is more present in class. When testing scores are useful in designing or targeting solutions, it is important to understand these attendance disparities.</p> <p>While there remain concerns about stigmatization of students due to measurement and quantification of learning losses, it would be helpful to further prepare teachers to use assessments in formative ways through pre-service and in-service training. Using formative assessments allows teachers and schools to direct resources in an effective manner, personalize lesson plans, and improve teacher understanding of students' needs and capabilities (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]). In conclusion, although tests are imperfect, short-term diagnostic tests and formative tests are more useful and beneficial than others in addressing COVID learning loss.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-10">Controversy 3: Which recovery plans should be prioritized?</hd> <p>As has been discussed, issues of practical meaningfulness and systemic biases lead to questions related to how researchers and practitioners may best identify the proper approach to recover lost learning opportunities. The American Rescue Plan (ARP) allocated $125 billion for elementary and secondary schools between 2021–2024, a lump sum to empower school districts to seek the best plans for students. Recognizing the urgent need to accelerate students' academic achievement, ARP requires at least 20% of the total funds to be devoted to address COVID learning loss. The bill includes "maintenance of equity" provisions to emphasize that students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds should be prioritized in funding distribution. Although this funding is specifically intended for proven programs and practices, mixed evidence in educational research complicates decision-making over the best plan needed to recover students' lost learning. Researchers may be hesitant to apply findings from one study in a particular context to other dissimilar contexts or may suggest that before a program is implemented at scale, a smaller pilot study is conducted first, delaying potential benefits to students. The plethora of possible approaches to address student needs makes it difficult to identify a one-size-fits-all approach, with different groups advocating for interventions focused primarily on academics while others suggest a focus on non-academic services and programs. This argument has also been colored as new political arguments spread about the types of materials schools use, just as the very nature of the pandemic has become politicized. Since school districts need to allocate the funding to the right areas, different parties have different or even opposing proposals on how to best help students recover from the pandemic shock.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-11">Advocacy for academics-focused recovery strategies</hd> <p>With the belief that addressing ongoing academic learning must remain schools' utmost priority, academics-focused strategists have proposed lengthening the school day or school year (Griffith, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]), intensive programs of small-group "high-dosage" tutoring (Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref35">29</reflink>]), and regular check-in tests to monitor progress (Slavin et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]). Past research points to high-dosage and small-group tutoring as an effective intervention to boost all K-12 students' mathematics (Pellegrini et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]) and reading skills (Neitzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]), with particularly large gains for those struggling most. Advocates for academics-focused strategies believe that practitioners should seek out and implement tutoring programs with strong evidence affirming the quality of the program. These programs have the potential to support student learning gains in both the short-term response to COVID and longer-term learning.</p> <p>There remain differing opinions on effective interventions to remediate losses while maintaining students' curiosity and engagement. A key concern is that a narrow focus on COVID learning loss in mathematics and reading would divert the government's limited funding toward these two subjects, which reduces available resources for other equally important subjects such as science and social science (Zhao, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]). Advocates for these interventions emphasize the need for short-term diagnostic tests to monitor students' progress and supply high-dosage tutoring to those who need it as a way to mitigate learning losses.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-12">Advocacy for non-academics-focused recovery strategies</hd> <p>Because of the intense impact of the pandemic and educational disruptions on students' social-emotional well-being, development, and physical health, a vocal group of advocates has pushed for interventions primarily focused on addressing non-academic needs. Social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions have been positively connected to academic outcomes, social relationships, and emotional well-being (Byun et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]), suggesting that programs focused on SEL may play a pivotal role in post-pandemic recovery. Non-academics-focused strategists advocate for more recess, extra-curricular activities, physical education, and social time, as well as counseling and meditation (Strear et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>A focus on non-academic needs also serves as a reminder of the importance of supporting the well-being of teachers and staff. While much of the COVID response efforts have centered on student needs, educators have also been idealing with high teacher absences, high rates of turnover, and increased demands from parents, policymakers, and school administrators (Carver-Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>]). Programs such as the ERASE-Stress program are designed to support educators and provide them with tools to manage their stresses and trauma and make the school environment a more supportive place to work (Berger et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]). SEL interventions on teachers were positively associated with student performance and well-being (Corcoran et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because of limited school time and funding, non-academics-focused strategies and academics-focused strategies are unfortunately at odds. The constrained amount of school time and financial resources means that allocating more time and money to one strategy will inevitably reduce available resources for the other. However, it is not realistic or beneficial to put all our eggs in one basket.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-13">Recommendations for practitioners</hd> <p>While the arguments in favor of academic vs. non-academic services do conflict with each other in terms of time and resource distribution, choosing between academic learning and socio-emotional learning may not necessarily be a dichotomy; they may complement and catalyze each other in a synergistic way. Research found that SEL has a positive association with student behavior and academic performance (Zins et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref45">39</reflink>]). Conversely, tutoring may also enhance socio-emotional skills. Although tutors cannot replace mental health counselors, they can serve as caring adults who provide ample support for students and refer them to other trained specialists if needed. Small-group tutoring settings not only foster academic learning, they also allow for relationship building between tutors and students (Cabezas et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Stitching tutoring and socio-emotional strategies together as a package could allow academic learning to be uplifted by physical activity, joy, and opportunities for self-expression. Whichever strategy a school district adopts, it is key to ground practices within the science of learning, create support to align with local students' needs, and most importantly, prioritize efforts to support disadvantaged students for a more equitable recovery plan. However, not all district and school re-opening and operation plans strive for equity. When submitting their funding expenditure plans, Mississippi (among other states) refused to acknowledge the differential impact of the pandemic on underserved populations, suggesting that the pandemic impacted all students equally and that their response would address the "highest priority needs of all students" (Mississippi Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]). Ensuring the prioritization of those students who were most impacted by the pandemic cannot be achieved through practitioners alone: Institutional support from school districts, state, or federal governments is indispensable.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-14">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>Drawing from structural inequity theory, we reviewed three controversies on historical issues, current measurement, and future strategies. Analysis of the first controversy reveals that differential learning loss not only pertains to the COVID pandemic, but is rooted in historical, chronic, and systemic problems, therefore solutions designed to address these problems should be long-term-focused and sustainable. To address this structural problem, changes beyond the institutional level are necessary. Without support from federal or district levels, individual practitioners' hands are tied.</p> <p>The second controversy brings our attention to strengths and weaknesses of current measurements, which points out that structural inequity affects the representativeness of the student samples. The take-away for practitioners from the second controversy is that although all tests are biased, short-term diagnostic tests and formative tests can provide useful information to help guide classroom instructions and targeted interventions.</p> <p>The third controversy examines the prioritization of different recovery plans. We conclude that it matters less whether academics-focused strategies or non-academics-focused strategies are prioritized, what really matters is to prioritize vulnerable and disadvantaged children first. A package deal catering to equitable resource distribution is needed in the post-pandemic world.</p> <p>Though the pandemic has caused widespread pain and strife, it has provided an opportunity to reflect on the shortcomings in our education system and use increased funding to focus our rebuilding efforts on addressing inequities. However, it is worth noting that the burden of rebuilding the education system should not be placed solely on practitioners. A concerted effort among teachers, parents, policymakers, and researchers is more urgent than ever. To build back better, a strong researcher-practitioner partnership is essential to utilize evidence in practice. A trusting teacher-policymaker relationship determines the fidelity and the feasibility of interventions. The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of the pre-pandemic system by spotlighting the problems of home advantage and digital divide. Simply returning to pre-pandemic norms and ignoring learning losses is insufficient. When practitioners redesign the education system, equity, academic achievement, mental health, and well-being should be included as equally important educational outcomes along with short-term diagnostic testing.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors acknowledge Hunter Gehlbach, Amanda Neitzel, Akash Pallath, Claire Chuter, and Susan Davis for providing constructive suggestions and proofreading the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0158753265-17">Additional Resources</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> 1. _B_Center for Research and Reform in Education. (2021). ProvenTutoring</bold>. https://proventutoring.org/</item> </ulist> <p>This website is designed to help educators access tutoring programs in reading and mathematics that have been proven to be effective based on rigorous research. It was developed to support COVID-19 recovery in schools. For each proven program, the site provides program descriptions, implementation information, costs, and relevant research findings.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> 2. _B_Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. (2021). _I_Literacy Tutoring for Baltimore: What we know, where we are, and how to move forward_i_. Abell Foundation</bold>. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613417.pdf</item> </ulist> <p>This report advocates for the implementation of effective tutoring programs to help Baltimore City students. It summarizes the U.S. research establishing tutoring effectiveness, examines available literacy tutoring supports, discusses challenges in expanding existing programs, and shares next steps.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> 3. _B_Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J., Connolly, A., Balfanz, J., & Shapiro, D. (2020). Proposed COVID-19 response: Corps for student success. Everyone Graduates Center</bold>. https://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Corps-for-Student-Success-Feb-3-Version.pdf</item> </ulist> <p>This paper advocates for leveraging AmeriCorps and federal funding to create a Corps for Student Success, which includes academic tutors, coaches for students focusing on learning and transitioning to post-secondary education and careers, and mentors supporting personal growth.</p> <ref id="AN0158753265-18"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> "COVID learning loss" is commonly used to describe relative decreases in students' academic achievement during the COVID-affected time as compared to the pre-pandemic time (Kuhfeld et al., [21]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0158753265-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Amplify. (2021). Research brief: COVID-19 means more students not learning to read. https://go.info.amplify.com/download-whitepaper-fy21_general_moydata_national_readingresearch</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnum, M. (2020, July 24). Standardized tests were canceled last school year. Don't count on that happening again, federal official says. Chalkbeat. https://<ulink href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/7/24/21337475/us-department-education-coronavirus-testing-waiver-next-school-year">www.chalkbeat.org/2020/7/24/21337475/us-department-education-coronavirus-testing-waiver-next-school-year</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berger, R., Abu-Raiya, H., & Benatov, J. (2016). Reducing primary and secondary traumatic stress symptoms among educators by training them to deliver a resiliency program (ERASE-Stress) following the Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86 (2), 236 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bielinski, J., Brown, R., & Wagner, K. (2020). COVID slide: Research on learning loss & recommendations to close the gap. Illuminate Education, 22. https://<ulink href="http://www.fastbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/covid-19-slide-whitepaper.pdf">www.fastbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/covid-19-slide-whitepaper.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref29" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blad, E., & Ujifusa, A. (2021, April 7). Biden education department approves one request to cancel state tests but rejects others. Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/biden-education-department-approves-one-request-to-cancel-state-tests-but-rejects-others/2021/04">www.edweek.org/policy-politics/biden-education-department-approves-one-request-to-cancel-state-tests-but-rejects-others/2021/04</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref31" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, R. (2017). Avoiding overtesting. Illuminate Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.illuminateed.com/blog/2017/03/avoiding-too-much-testing-in-schools/">www.illuminateed.com/blog/2017/03/avoiding-too-much-testing-in-schools/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Byun, S., Inns, A. J., Kim, E., Lake, C., & Slavin, R. E. (2020). Meta-analytic review on SEL programs. Society for Research in Educational Effectiveness. https://<ulink href="http://www.sree.org/assets/conferences/2020s/abstract/paper/488%5fidentified.pdf">www.sree.org/assets/conferences/2020s/abstract/paper/488%5fidentified.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref46" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cabezas, V., Cuesta, J. I., & Gallego, F. A. (2021). Does short-term school tutoring have medium-term effects? Experimental evidence from Chile. https://economia.uc.cl/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/dt-565.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref42" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carver-Thomas, D., Leung, M., & Burns, D. (2021). California teachers and COVID-19: How the pandemic is impacting the teacher workforce. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/987.779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corcoran, R. P., Cheung, A. C. K., Kim, E., & Xie, C. (2018). Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review, 25, 56 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., Friedlaender, D., & Snyder, J. (2014). Student-centered schools: Policy supports for closing the opportunity gap. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-student-centered-policy.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and international datasets. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/126686,JRC121071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domingue, B. W., Hough, H. J., Lang, D., & Yeatman, J. (2021). Changing patterns of growth in oral reading fluency during the COVID-19 pandemic—policy brief. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/changing-patterns-growth-oral-reading-fluency-during-covid-19-pandemic</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54 (3), 151 – 162. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egede, L. E., & Walker, R. J. (2020). Structural racism, social risk factors, and COVID-19—A dangerous convergence for black Americans. New England Journal of Medicine, 383 (12), e77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2023616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (17), e2022376118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, D. (2021, April 8). Does it hurt children to measure pandemic learning loss? The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/us/school-testing-education-covid.html">www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/us/school-testing-education-covid.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, M. (2020, May 7). What will it take to stabilize schools in the time of COVID-19? Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/what-will-it-take-stabilize-schools-time-covid-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020a). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49 (8), 549 – 565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhfeld, M., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Lewis, K. (2020b). Learning during COVID-19: Initial findings on students' reading and math achievement and growth. NWEA Research. https://<ulink href="http://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2020/11/Collaborative-brief-Learning-during-COVID-19.NOV2020.pdf">www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2020/11/Collaborative-brief-Learning-during-COVID-19.NOV2020.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33 (2), 124 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meeter, M. (2021). Primary school mathematics during the COVID-19 pandemic: No evidence of learning gaps in adaptive practicing results. Trends in neuroscience and education, 25, 100163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mississippi Department of Education. (2021). Mississippi State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (No. 1810–0754). https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/12/MS-ARP-ESSER-State-Plan-Final.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neitzel, A. J., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., Slavin, R. E., & Cutting, L. E. (2021). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (1), 649 – 667. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellegrini, M., Lake, C., Neitzel, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2021). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 7 (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raymond, M., Han, C., Goulas, S., Lee, W. F., & Waeiss, C. (2020). Estimates of learning loss in the 2019-2020 school year. The Center for Research on Education Outcomes. https://credo.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj6481/f/short_brief_on_learning_loss_final_v.3.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renaissance Learning. (2021). How kids are performing tracking the midyear impact of COVID-19 on reading and mathematics achievement. https://renaissance.widen.net/s/zvq8rnrp9t/r63370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. D., Kraft, M. A., Loeb, S., & Schueler, B. E. (2021). Accelerating student learning with high-dosage tutoring. EdResearch for Recovery Project. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED613847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34 (1), 82 – 92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shinwell, J., & Defeyter, M. A. (2017, January 31). Investigation of summer learning loss in the UK—Implications for holiday club provision. Frontiers in Public Health, 5 (1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, S., Roy, D., Sinha, K., Parveen, S., Sharma, G., & Joshi, G. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations. Psychiatry Research, 293, 113429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slavin, R., Madden, N., Neitzel, A., & Lake, C. (2020). The national tutoring corps: Scaling up proven tutoring for struggling students. Success for All Foundation. https://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Scaling-up-Natl-Tutoring-Corps.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storey, N., & Zhang, Q. (2021, September 10). A Meta-analysis of COVID Learning Loss. EdArXiv, advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/qekw2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strear, M., Duffy, H., & Sunde, A. (2021). When schools go dark, school counselors shine: School counseling during a global pandemic. American Institutes for Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED613589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46 (6), 1526 – 1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wedenoja, L. (2020). Without testing, how do we measure learning loss from school shutdowns? Rockefeller Institute of Government. <ulink href="http://rockinst.org/blog/without-testing-how-do-we-measure-learning-loss-from-school-shutdowns/">http://rockinst.org/blog/without-testing-how-do-we-measure-learning-loss-from-school-shutdowns/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, Y. (2021, March 4). Build back better: Avoid the learning loss trap. Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09544-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Qiyang Zhang and Nathan Storey</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref47"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1365649
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Controversies behind COVID Learning Loss: Historical Issues, Current Measurements, and Future Strategies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhang%2C+Qiyang%22">Zhang, Qiyang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7474-2435">0000-0001-7474-2435</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Storey%2C+Nathan%22">Storey, Nathan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1756-5529">0000-0003-1756-5529</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Theory+Into+Practice%22"><i>Theory Into Practice</i></searchLink>. 2022 61(3):300-311.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gap%22">Achievement Gap</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Methods%22">Educational Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0040-5841<br />1543-0421
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: COVID learning loss has sparked fierce debate among stakeholders in education. There are debates among concerned educators about ways to understand learning loss reports, methods to measure learning loss, and strategies to recover from learning loss. In this article, we unpack opposing perspectives on these three controversies with the goal of extracting useful recommendations to guide post-pandemic education revival. Drawing from structural inequity theory, this article reviews the controversies through historical, current, and future lenses respectively: (1) Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss? (2) Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately? and (3) Which recovery plans should we prioritize to address COVID learning loss? Within each controversy, the article makes suggestions on how practitioners may make sense of each controversy and integrate take-aways from them into their work.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1365649
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1365649
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 300
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gap
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Controversies behind COVID Learning Loss: Historical Issues, Current Measurements, and Future Strategies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhang, Qiyang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Storey, Nathan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0040-5841
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-0421
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Theory Into Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1