Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Pre-tests = learner abuse*

28 August 2008 by Clark 12 Comments

I thought I’d gone off about pre-tests here before, but apparently not (at least I can’t find it).   So let me do it now.   Pre-tests are learner-abusive. Period.   *OK, with one (rare) caveat…

First, let’s agree that quizzes are usually not an enjoyable experience.   Except when the outcome doesn’t matter, and provides valuable information (e.g. the ‘Cozmo quiz’ where you learn things about yourself).   However, when you don’t know the answers (by definition, or you wouldn’t need it), it’s just a tedious process in most cases.

There are two major arguments for pre-tests, which I’ll argue against.   One is that it helps the learner understand what’s coming, serving as an advance organizer, activating relevant knowledge. Yes, it will do that.   However, there are much less cruel ways to do it, such as dramatically or humorously exaggerating the consequences of not having the knowledge, drilling down from the larger context, etc.   Doing it through a random quiz, particularly when you’re not already expected to know the information, just leads to frustration and/or boredom.

The other reason used to justify pre-tests is to show the delta from before and after the learning experience.   This is also wrong, since you shouldn’t even be developing the learning unless you already know they don’t know the material.   Consequently, the only thing you should need to demonstrate is that they know can achieve your objectives. And beyond, that it leads to improved performance and better outcomes.

The only qualification to this is when the pre-assessment is used to allow the student to test-out. That is, by passing a pre-assessment, they can skip material they already know.   Even then, it might be a preference, rather than required.

So, please, don’t abuse your learners, and don’t give pre-tests unless it allows the learner to test-out of the learning (and only if they want to).

Comments

  1. Eric Wilbanks says

    28 August 2008 at 11:52 AM

    Thank you! I’ve wanted to pose this same rant to my coworkers but it seems to be such a sacred cow.
    (I prefer a slightly different bovine moniker.) You’ve given me some great arguments.
    After I get fired, I’ll post more about how everyone responds. :-)

  2. Ken Allan says

    29 August 2008 at 2:53 AM

    Kia ora Clark!

    Test-out. I like it. I didn’t know that term. But we use the technique with our so-called diagnostics, and they work.

    Students (y12 Chemistry) often opt in to doing the parts of the course they have the option to test-out with. It works, and no student feels under any pressure to ‘do’ stuff they don’t want to.

    Ka kite
    from Middle-earth

  3. Richard says

    29 August 2008 at 7:09 PM

    We use the test out concept quite a bit in my organization – especially for the annual re-orientation courses. The staff find little value in the courses, but they are required to take them so we can remain in compliance with our accrediting agency. By allowing them to test out of the courses, we reduce the amount of time employees must spend each year taking the re-orientation courses. One employee commented that he is trying to set the speed record for completing the courses in the least amount of time. This is fine to me because it proves what we really need to know: does the employee know what our guidelines require as a baseline of minimal knowledge? If they pass the pre-test, then yes.

    Of course it all means nothing if the pre-test is poorly constructed! I’m assuming, Clark, that you are also assuming we are all constructing “good” pre-tests. I do remember taking an entire course in my university studies dedicated to constructing tests (I think it was called “Measures and Evaluations” or something to that effect).

    Why would we ever want to waste our users’ time forcing them to take a course in which they can already demonstrate competence? It is a waste of business resources and it is insulting to the users. What kind of message does it send when an organization doesn’t mind wasting their employees’ time?

    You say pre-tests are learner abuse. I agree and say there are many other things we do in the name of training or education which equate to learner abuse as well. Thanks Clark!

  4. Richard says

    29 August 2008 at 7:58 PM

    Test out is the way to go for those mandatory annual re-orientation courses. Why waste people’s time forcing them to take a course when they can prove mastery or competence? I hadn’t thought about the points you make in your arguments for a while. Your point #1 I may take up issue with, because there has been value for me to take a pre-test when I was studying a course for IT certifications – the pre-test showed me whether I really needed to spend more time with a certain topic or move on to another. I’m not sure if you’d say that was really an “advance organizer” though. Your point #2 is exactly the opposite of what was drilled into my head at university, but I think I agree with you on this one… and it leads right into your point about testing out of a course. Very nice.

    I blogged about testing out of courses here: http://techlearnology.blogspot.com/2008/08/heres-why-unlocking-your-course.html

  5. Clark says

    30 August 2008 at 6:34 AM

    Great comments (hope you kept your job, Eric!). Ken, glad to hear you’re making it available to kids as well, and interested to see them taking it anyway. Not too surprised, really.

    And, yes, Richard, you’re right, I am assuming well-constructed tests, this all falls by the way-side if it’s not. Hadn’t thought about re=certifications, but pre-tests to test out make sense, and of course you could *choose* to use it as you suggest. I’ll just suggest that too many systems don’t have the capability to support pre-tests for testing-out.

  6. Lisa Neal Gualtieri says

    31 August 2008 at 4:56 PM

    Great post, and also great comments.

    I would be thrilled if you wrote about this for eLearn Magazine. Care to expand upon your thoughts?

  7. Valerie Sheppard says

    2 September 2008 at 7:50 AM

    I am in the nonprofit sector. I have used pre- and post-testing to be able to demonstrate that knowledge was gained. This data (and analysis of it) is useful for grant applications to get funding to develop more coursework. I am open to any other suggestions on how to demonstrate learning – any suggestions? Thanks!

  8. Clark says

    2 September 2008 at 8:20 AM

    Valerie, I’ll be writing a slightly longer version for eLearn Mag, and hope to cover this, but briefly:

    *Document the need first: that is, that this learning is needed (or why develop it?).
    *Define an objective (ala Mager) that will address it. Include specific criteria that demonstrates they know it, and build the final assessment.
    *Design your learning to achieve the outcome; align the learning to ensure they’ll pass the assessment.
    *Measure the outcome, and show that they achieve the assessment once the learning’s complete.

    It’s better than a pre-post test, since it’s criterion-referenced, not a mere increment (without knowing that the post-performance is at the necessary level). If you’ve got the need, and they’re passing a test to criteria, you’ve documentation for your grant. And no one’s had to take a pre-test for every course. Hope this helps. If you need more assistance, contact me directly.

  9. Doug Holton says

    30 July 2009 at 4:18 PM

    Pre/post testing is useful for research purposes to demonstrate what individual students learned, but that doesn’t mean it should be used in regular classroom settings all the time. I started with just post-tests to show what students still didn’t know after instruction, then I did research tutoring sessions with pre and post tests to show what they gained, and to see differences in the kinds of gains between for example students who knew more or less on the pre-test.

    From my experience with college students at least they have had no problem with a pre-test (or a post-test for that matter) as long as it isn’t too long. They like seeing what they know or don’t know, and want to know their scores and the answers to the questions.

  10. Clark says

    30 July 2009 at 4:57 PM

    Doug, for research, maybe. But in practice, you shouldn’t be offering the learning unless you know they need it, and you should be checking to see that they *can* do what they need now, *not* what the delta is. What if they’ve improved but still can’t do the task? Testing afterwards to see what’s still missing, if anything, makes sense as a formative test on the learning, but pre-tests for the learners unless they can ‘test out’ still seems to be cruel.

Trackbacks

  1. Death by pre-test | Workplace Learning Today says:
    1 September 2008 at 5:02 AM

    […] Pre-tests = learner abuse* | Learnlets |Clark Quinn | 28 August 2008 Share and Enjoy: […]

  2. TechnicalTrainer.org » Blog Archive » Did he really say that? says:
    6 December 2008 at 5:14 PM

    […] Back in August of this year, Clark Quinn wrote the following in his blog, “Pre-tests are learner-abusive. Period.” You can read the whole entry here. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.