Researchers analyzed state assessment scores from spring 2019 and spring 2021 to compare achievement growth on the state assessment for students who consistently completed three or more Zearn digital lessons each week during the 2020–2021 school year to students who did not consistently use Zearn. While this research study does not have a randomized control and differences between student groups cannot be fully ruled out, demographics were similar across all available measures. Researchers found:
- Students at the lowest levels of math proficiency experienced two times the growth in scores with consistent Zearn usage, compared to students who used a high-quality curriculum alone.
- With Zearn, students at the lowest levels of math proficiency exceeded state growth benchmarks, growing more than two grade levels in two years of math learning.
- Nearly 40 percent of students at the lowest level of proficiency moved up at least one level on the state assessment with consistent Zearn usage.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 1<text-style-figure>
Students at the lowest levels of math proficiency who consistently used Zearn experienced two times the growth in scores compared to students who used a high-quality curriculum alone.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 2<text-style-figure>
Students at the lowest levels of math proficiency who consistently used Zearn experienced two times the growth in scores compared to students who used a high-quality curriculum alone.
While low-scoring students who used a high quality curriculum alone fell short of state benchmarks for expected two-year growth on the state assessment, students at the same starting point who used Zearn met and even exceeded expected 2 year growth. Students who scored at the lowest level of math proficiency on the 2019 assessment grew 2.4 grade levels in two years of pandemic learning.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 3<text-style-figure>
Thirty-nine percent of students at the lowest level of proficiency moved up at least one level on the state assessment with consistent Zearn usage, compared to only 4 percent of students at the same starting level who did not use Zearn.
