The effect of pre-testing on post-test performance

At the present time, sharp differences of opinion exist concerning the possible and probable consequences of giving studients a test before the commencement of instruction. Researchers are unclear about the effects of such “pre-tests” on subsequent learning (if any), and they are also unclear about the effects of such tests on further tests (of varying degrees of similarity and difference) given after instructional sessions. There is evidence that pre-tests can have orienting and motivational and (hence) teaching functions — in addition to the sought-for testing function. There is also evidence that these additional functions can be either general or specific. The present paper contributes to the ongoing debate by discussing the issues involved in the context of a series of experiments conducted by the author.

[1]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Pretest and Sensitization Effects in Curriculum Evaluation , 1970 .

[2]  M. Sime,et al.  OVERT RESPONSES, KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS AND LEARNING , 1969 .

[3]  M. Apter,et al.  A comparison of the effects of multiple-choice and constructed response pre-tests in programmed instruction. , 1971 .

[4]  D. Berlyne,et al.  An experimental study of human curiosity. , 1954, British journal of psychology.

[5]  J. N. Washburne.  The use of questions in social science material. , 1929 .

[6]  Norman H. Mackworth,et al.  The wide-angle reflection eye camera for visual choice and pupil size , 1968 .

[7]  Ernst Z. Rothkopf,et al.  The Concept of Mathemagenic Activities1 , 1970 .

[8]  D. Ausubel,et al.  School learning;: An introduction to educational psychology , 1969 .

[9]  Barton B. Proger,et al.  Conceptual Pre-Structuring for Detailed Verbal Passages. , 1970 .

[10]  Conditions of prequestioning and retention of meaningful material. , 1966 .

[11]  R. Morasky,et al.  Time Required to Process Information as a Function of Question Placement , 1970 .

[12]  S. Samuels.  The effect of post-test relevant pre-tests and discussion-type feedback on learning and retention , 1969 .

[13]  M. Apter,et al.  THE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE‐CHOICE PRE‐TESTING ON POST‐TEST PERFORMANCE IN PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION , 1971 .

[14]  D. Ausubel,et al.  Organizer, general background, and antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning. , 1962 .

[15]  Alice Winifred Heim,et al.  Intelligence and personality: Their assessment and relationship. , 1970 .

[16]  G. R. Skanes,et al.  DIFFERENTIAL TRANSFER OF TRAINING IN BRIGHT AND DULL SUBJECTS OF THE SAME MENTAL AGE , 1971 .

[17]  W. McKeachie,et al.  The problem-oriented approach to teaching psychology. , 1954 .

[18]  The Effects of Pre-Test Difficulty on Post-Test Performance following Self-Instruction , 1973 .

[19]  D. Lewis.  The Role of the Pre-Test in Experimental Design , 1969 .

[20]  R. Morasky.  Eye Movements as a Function of Adjunct Question Placement , 1972 .

[21]  Lawrence T. Frase,et al.  Boundary Conditions for Mathemagenic Behaviors1 , 1970 .

[22]  Norman H. Mackworth,et al.  A stand camera for line-of-sight recording , 1967 .

[23]  J. Peeck,et al.  Effect of Prequestions on Delayed Retention of Prose Material. , 1970 .

[24]  N. Mackworth,et al.  The gaze selects informative details within pictures , 1967 .

[25]  H. W. Gustafson,et al.  Effects of Adjunct Questions, Pretesting and Degree of Student Supervision on Learning from an Instructional Text. , 1970 .

[26]  Gerald L. Natkin,et al.  The Effects on Adjunct Questions on Short and Long-Term Recall of Prose Materials , 1969 .

[27]  J. Hartley,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF PRE‐TESTS, INTERIM TESTS, AND AGE ON POST‐TEST PERFORMANCE FOLLOWING SELF‐INSTRUCTION , 1970 .

[28]  D. Ausubel,et al.  The role of discriminability in meaningful learning and retention. , 1961 .

[29]  D. Ausubel.  The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. , 1960 .