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.

*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.

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

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.

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

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!