INTRODUCTION
Many students possess an inherent motivation to learn and succeed academically, regardless of their performance levels However, research indicates that students often employ ineffective study methods (Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009; Yan, Thai, & Bjork, 2014) To enhance learning outcomes, it is crucial for students to adopt proven study techniques One effective strategy that has been extensively researched is retrieval practice, which can significantly improve students' learning experiences.
Retrieval practice enhances memory retention, as evidenced by research showing that students recall information more effectively after retrieving it during tests compared to merely restudying the material A study by Carpenter (2011) demonstrated this effect, where participants who recalled target words from word pairs performed significantly better on subsequent tests than those who simply restudied the pairs These findings align with similar results from other studies, reinforcing the importance of retrieval practice in learning.
Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Pyc &Rawson, 2010; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Rowland, 2014)
Previous research highlights the advantages of retrieval practice in educational environments A study by Carpenter, Pashler, and Cepeda (2009) focused on 8th grade students' memory retention of historical facts The students engaged in retrieval practice, re-studied the material, or did not review it at all The findings revealed that, during a follow-up retention test conducted nine months later, students who utilized retrieval practice retained significantly more information compared to those who either re-studied or did not review the material.
McDaniel, Wildman, and Anderson (2012) investigated the impact of retrieval practice in a classroom environment, focusing on undergraduate students in a Brain and Behavior course The study involved weekly online review activities that varied: some weeks required students to retrieve specific facts, while other weeks involved reading the facts, and some weeks had no review at all The findings revealed that topics reviewed through retrieval practice were retained more effectively than those learned through reading or not reviewed at all.
Retrieval doesn't always improve retention
Recent research indicates that retrieval practice may not be the most effective learning strategy for all students A study by Carpenter et al (2016) involved undergraduate biology students who participated in an activity on oogenesis, where they were divided into two groups: one that copied definitions and another that recalled them Testing a week later revealed that high-performing students benefited more from recall, while low-performing students performed better with copying Students in the middle performance tier showed no significant difference between the two methods These findings suggest that retrieval practice may not be optimal for all learners, particularly for those with lower academic performance.
Karpicke et al (2014) conducted a study with elementary school children on science concepts, revealing that students initially scored only 10% correct They discovered that those who engaged in retrieval practice performed similarly to peers who participated in non-retrieval activities on subsequent tests This finding aligns with Carpenter et al (2016), indicating that retrieval practice may be ineffective for learners with low initial performance Both studies suggest that retrieval practice is most beneficial for students with prior knowledge, as low-performing students, who typically have limited material to retrieve, may find it no more effective than re-studying.
How to make retrieval more effective
Research indicates that a foundational level of initial knowledge is crucial for effective retrieval practice To enhance initial learning, one effective strategy is the use of prequestions—questions posed before students begin a learning session Studies have demonstrated that prequestions can significantly improve students' future memory retention of the material (Hamaker, 1986; Rickards, 1977) Consequently, employing prequestions may elevate students' understanding of a topic, thereby facilitating more effective retrieval practice.
Benefits of prequestions Asking prequestions improves learning
In laboratory experiments on prequestions, participants are randomly assigned to either a Prequestion Group, which answers prequestions before reading a prose passage, or a Control Group, which only studies the passage Research consistently shows that the Prequestion Group outperforms the Control Group on delayed final tests, as evidenced by multiple studies (Bull & Dizney, 1973; Boker, 1974; Little & Bjork, 2016; Peeck, 1970; Richland, Kornell, & Kao, 2009; Shanahan).
1986) Also, within the Prequestion Group, information that was prequestioned tends to be remembered better than other information from the passage that was not prequestioned (Bull
& Dizney, 1973; Frase, 1968; Pressley et al., 1990; Richland et al., 2009; Rickards, 1976)
There is some suggestive evidence that prequestions might raise retention in lower- performing students more so than in higher-performing students (Memory, 1981; Memory,
In a study by Memory (1983), participants were categorized into low-ability and high-ability readers using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test Within these categories, participants were randomly assigned to either a Prequestion Group or a Control Group The results indicated that both groups of readers who received prequestions performed better on a final retention test compared to those in the Control Group Notably, low-ability readers showed a significantly greater improvement, with the performance gap being twice as large as that of high-ability readers, highlighting the effectiveness of prequestions for struggling students.
Dowaliby (1990) investigated how prequestions and retrieval practice influence learning among low- and high-ability readers Participants were divided into three groups: Prequestion, Control, and Postquestion, with the Postquestion Group engaging in retrieval practice after the learning phase Contrary to findings from Memory (1983), Dowaliby discovered that low-ability readers performed better on a final multiple-choice test in the Prequestion Group compared to the Control Group, a trend that was also observed in high-ability readers Additionally, high-ability readers demonstrated superior performance overall.
The study revealed that participants in the Postquestion Group outperformed those in the Control Group, particularly among high-ability individuals However, low-ability participants in the Postquestion Group showed no significant improvement compared to their counterparts in the Control Group These findings align with the results reported by Carpenter et al.
Prequestions enhance learning from reading passages and significantly improve memory retention for the information associated with the prequestions compared to non-prequestioned material This effect may be attributed to the way prequestions direct attention to the relevant content, as suggested by research (Bull, 1973; Frase, 1968).
Research by Hamaker (1986), Hamilton (1985), and Shanahan (1986) suggests that individuals who are given prequestions tend to excel in final test items that mirror those questions This indicates that prequestions enhance performance on related material compared to new content from the passage.
Research indicates that groups tend to concentrate more on material that has been prequestioned while reading Studies support this hypothesis, showing that students who were given prequestions performed significantly better on a delayed final test regarding the prequestioned information compared to non-prequestioned information (Boker, 1974; Frase, Patrick, &).
Schumer, 1970; Peeck, 1970; Sagaria & Di Vesta, 1978)
Do prequestions hurt learning of non-prequestioned information?
Research has shown that the learning of non-prequestioned material can be negatively impacted by prequestions, as evidenced by several studies (Boyd, 1973; Hamaker, 1986; Peeck, 1970; Shavelson, Berliner, Ravitch, & Loeding, 1974; Shanahan, 1986) Notably, the findings of Sagaria and Di Vesta support this disruption in learning.
EXPERIMENT 1
A study was conducted to evaluate the impact of prequestions on learning retention in an introductory psychology course Students were divided into two groups: the Prequestion Group, which answered a lecture-specific prequestion before each class, and the Control Group, which did not After each class, both groups answered two questions related to the lesson, with the Prequestion Group responding to one familiar question and one new question, while the Control Group answered two new questions A follow-up quiz was administered a week later, featuring the same two questions and an additional question from the previous week that had not been seen before.
This study investigated the immediate and long-term effects of prequestions on lecture-based learning It compared the performance of students in the Prequestion Group and the Control Group at the end of class, focusing on the Prequestion versus the New Question Additionally, it examined one-week delayed memory for questions presented at the beginning and end of class (Prequestions) against those only presented at the end (New Questions), as well as memory retention for information that was not tested (Quiz-Only Questions).
Hypothesis and predictions Immediate effects of prequestions
Based on studies showing positive effects of prequestions (Carpenter & Toftness, 2017; Little & Bjork, 2016; Peeck, 1970; Pressley et al., 1990; Richland et al., 2009; Shanahan,
In 1986, it was anticipated that students in the Prequestion Group would achieve greater overall learning from the lecture compared to those in the Control Group Additionally, prior research suggested that within the Prequestion Group, memory retention for prequestioned information would surpass that of non-prequestioned information.
Class lectures limit selective processing of material compared to reading passages, suggesting that prequestions should not negatively impact non-prequestioned information Previous studies indicate that there may be no decrease, or even a potential advantage, for non-prequestioned information in the Prequestion Group compared to the Control Group.
Long-Term effects of prequestions
Numerous studies highlight the advantages of retrieval practice, indicating that content tested at the end of class is more likely to be remembered in subsequent quizzes Consequently, it is anticipated that material from the Prequestions and New questions will be recalled more effectively than that from the Quiz-Only questions This trend is expected to hold true for both the Prequestion Group and the Control Group.
Do prequestions boost the effects of retrieval practice?
McDaniel et al (2011) found that material tested at both the beginning and end of a lesson was better retained on a delayed test compared to material tested only at the end Both types of tested materials outperformed non-quizzed materials, indicating that prior exposure enhances student performance, with retrieval practice playing a key role Additionally, framing questions as prequestions further amplifies these benefits However, the study lacked a control group that did not receive prequestions, suggesting that the impact of prequestions on delayed retention warrants further exploration.
The study hypothesized that students in both the Prequestion Group and Control Group would achieve higher scores on a delayed quiz for newly tested information compared to information that was not tested This outcome would align with the established benefits of retrieval practice.
Research suggests that prequestions enhance the benefits of retrieval practice, leading to a more significant retrieval practice effect for New Questions compared to Quiz-Only Questions in the Prequestion Group versus the Control Group Additionally, within the Prequestion Group, the memory advantage for Prequestions over Quiz-Only Questions is anticipated to surpass the advantage of New Questions over Quiz-Only Questions.
The research took place over two semesters in an introductory psychology laboratory course, which was led by four graduate-level instructors The course was divided into small sections, each consisting of around 20 students, with each instructor teaching two sections in one semester and one section in the next In total, 230 students were enrolled across the 12 sections.
Each section convened weekly for 100 minutes, focusing on key topics like research design, sensation and perception, memory, and personality The course materials, including PowerPoint slides, homework assignments, and projects, were meticulously prepared in advance by the faculty course coordinator, ensuring consistency across all sections.
The study aimed to assess the impact of prequestions on immediate and delayed retention of course content Students in the Prequestion Group answered a relevant question at the start of class, which was revisited at the end alongside a new question from the same lesson In contrast, the Control Group did not engage with any questions initially but answered two questions at the end This design mirrors previous research on prequestions (Carpenter & Toftness, 2017) By comparing the performance of both groups on the end-of-class questions, the study evaluated how prequestions influenced immediate retention of both prequestioned and non-prequestioned material.
To investigate the delayed effects of prequestions, a review quiz was administered one week later, featuring two previously answered questions and one new question In the Prequestion Group, students encountered one question twice and another once, while the Control Group saw two questions only at the end of class This setup enabled a comparison of performance on previously asked questions versus those not asked, assessing the impact of retrieval practice on long-term retention Additionally, it examined whether previewing questions at the beginning of class enhances the benefits of retrieval practice.
The design involved creating three open-ended questions from each day's lesson, ensuring that each question addressed independent concepts This approach meant that answering one question would not reveal the answer to another All questions were directly related to the material presented in the instructors' PowerPoint presentations, often focusing on specific terms or definitions.
“What is procedural memory?”) that was introduced and discussed that day
In the study, students were divided into two groups: the Prequestion Group and the Control Group The Prequestion Group encountered a designated Prequestion at the beginning and end of class, while the Control Group received two New Questions only at the end of class Additionally, both groups had a Quiz Only Question that was included in a review quiz one week later The key distinction was that the Prequestion Group was exposed to one question at the start of class, unlike the Control Group Ultimately, all students faced the same two questions from the end of class and the Quiz Only Question during the review quiz A schematic of the study's design for the first two weeks is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Class activities throughout the semester for the Prequestion Group and the Control
For students in the Prequestion Group, six counterbalancing conditions were created so that each of the three questions from each lesson appeared equally often as the
In the Control Group, three counterbalancing conditions were established to ensure that each question type—New Questions and Quiz Only Questions—was presented equally Each student within a class section was randomly assigned to one of the nine conditions, effectively balancing any potential effects of the questions across different sections and instructors.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Instructors often administer quizzes at the start of a class to gauge students' understanding of the topic and assess their preparedness, such as whether they have completed the assigned readings or homework However, research indicates that these pre-lecture quizzes serve not only as assessment tools but also significantly enhance students' learning outcomes (Hamaker, 1986; Little & Bjork, 2016; Peeck, 1970; Pressley et al., 1990; Richland et al., 2009).
Consistent with this finding, the current study found that students within the
Students who received prequestions before the class lecture outperformed those in the Control Group on end-of-class questions related to the lecture content This advantage was limited to the material covered in the prequestions and did not extend to information not included in them These findings align with earlier research that utilized reading passages as stimuli.
Research indicates that students exposed to prequestions often perform worse on non-prequestioned material compared to those who are not (Peeck, 1970; Rickards, 1977; Sagaria & Di Vesta, 1978) However, the current study found no such decline in performance This discrepancy may arise from the way students process information while learning from prequestions, influenced by the type of material presented In studies utilizing reading passages, prequestions may direct students' focus towards specific information, potentially leading them to overlook or skim non-prequestioned content Consequently, this selective attention could impair memory retention for non-prequestioned information in the Prequestion Group compared to a Control Group.
In a classroom setting, students are unaware of when prequestioned and non-prequestioned information will be presented, which may reduce the likelihood of neglecting non-prequestioned content Additionally, students tend to focus more on the material due to its relevance to assignments and grades, making it less probable for them to skim or ignore this information It can be argued that prequestions enhance the processing of lecture content, benefiting both prequestioned and non-prequestioned information While previous research indicated this advantage (Carpenter & Toftness, 2017), the current study found that the benefits of prequestions were limited to the prequestioned information alone.
The discrepancy in findings between the Carpenter and Toftness (2017) study and the current study may be attributed to the length of the lecture, with the former's 2-minute video lecture yielding a general benefit of prequestions, whereas the latter's 100-minute classroom lecture did not The duration of the learning episode may impact students' ability to sustain attention, with shorter episodes like the 2-minute video allowing for focused attention throughout, and longer episodes like the 100-minute lecture leading to waning attention, mind-wandering, and disengagement As a result, while prequestioned information may still be noticeable and memorable, non-prequestioned information may not benefit from prequestions in lengthy lectures, highlighting the importance of considering lecture duration in the effectiveness of prequestions.
Research indicates that the impact of prequestions in classroom settings may be less pronounced than in laboratory studies McDaniel et al (2011) reported only a modest advantage of prequestioned information compared to non-prequestioned information Without a control group for comparison, it remains unclear if both types of information are retained better than information learned without prequestions The current study enhances our understanding of prequestions in the classroom, revealing that students who received prequestions remembered more by the end of class compared to a control group, although this advantage was limited to the prequestioned information.
Here is the rewritten paragraph:The current study examined the impact of prequestions on retrieval practice, revealing that students who had previously tested information retained it better on a one-week delayed quiz compared to those who hadn't This advantage was consistent across both the Prequestion Group and the Control Group, aligning with existing research on the benefits of retrieval practice (Carpenter, 2012; Dunlosky et al., 2013; Kornell & Vaughn, 2016; Rowland, 2014) Notably, providing prequestions at the beginning of class only marginally enhanced this advantage, suggesting that while retrieval is a potent memory enhancer, prequestions offer limited additional benefits.
This study is the first to evaluate the impact of prequestions on classroom learning by comparing a Prequestion Group to a Control Group The findings indicate that while prequestions can enhance students' retention of lecture information, their effectiveness is limited and context-specific The benefits may diminish when the learning material is lengthy, as students may struggle to maintain attention and connect prequestions to the lecture content To maximize the advantages of prequestions, it may be beneficial to reduce the length of subsequent content or to distribute prequestions throughout the class, which could better engage students and improve learning outcomes, akin to the effects of interpolated testing.
Schacter, 2014) The effectiveness of prequestions might also be mediated by individual differences in students’ curiosity, motivation, or prior knowledge
Research indicates that while the benefits of retrieval practice are well-known, the impact of asking students prequestions before learning is less understood Preliminary findings suggest that prequestions can enhance memory for specific information and may also provide modest advantages for retrieval practice This study contributes to the field by examining a classroom technique that improves learning in realistic settings Further classroom research is recommended to optimize retention and comprehension by incorporating prequestions into the learning process.
Boker, J R (1974) Immediate and delayed retention effects of interspersing questions in written instructional passages Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(1), 96-98
Boyd, W M (1973) Repeating questions in prose learning Journal of Educational
Bull, S G (1973) The role of questions in maintaining attention to textual material Review of Educational Research, 43(1), 83-87
Bull, S G., & Dizney, H F (1973) Epistemic-curiosity-arousing prequestions: Their effect on long-term retention Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 45-49
Carpenter, S K (2009) Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, &
Carpenter, S K (2011) Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37(6), 1547-
Carpenter, S K (2012) Testing enhances the transfer of learning Current Directions in
Carpenter, S K, & DeLosh, E L (2006) Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect
Carpenter, S K., Lund, T J S., Coffman, C R., Armstrong, P I., Lamm, M H., & Reason,
R D (2016) A classroom study on the relationship between student achievement and retrieval-enhanced learning Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 353-375
Carpenter, S K, Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N J (2009) Using test to enhance 8th grade students' retention of U.S History Facts Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 760-
Carpenter, S K., & Toftness, A R (2017) The Effect of Prequestions on Learning from
Video Presentations Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 6(1), 104-
Dowaliby, F J (1990) Adjunct questions in prose: A question position-by-reading ability interaction American Annals of the Deaf, 135(1), 50-53
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K A., Marsh, E J., Nathan, M J., & Willingham, D T (2013)
Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology Psychological Science in the Public
Frase, L T (1968) Effect of question location, pacing, and mode upon retention of prose material Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(4), 244-249
Frase, L T., Patrick, E., & Schumer, H (1970) Effect of question position and frequency upon learning from text under different levels of incentive Journal of Educational
Hamaker, C (1986) The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning Review of
Hamilton, R J (1985) A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 47-85
Karpicke, J D., Blunt, J R., Smith, M A., & Karpicke, S S (2014) Retrieval-based learning: The need for guided retrieval in elementary-school children Journal of
Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 3(3), 198-206
Karpicke, J D., Butler, A C., & Roediger, H L., III (2009) Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own?
Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K E (2016) Chapter Five-How Retrieval Attempts Affect Learning:
A Review and Synthesis Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65, 183-215
Little, J L., & Bjork, E L (2016) Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1085-1101
McDaniel, M A., Agarwal, P K., Huelser, B J., McDermott, K B., & Roediger III, H L
(2011) Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399-414
McDaniel, M A., Wildman, K M., & Anderson, J L (2012) Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: An experimental study
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1), 18-26
In a series of studies, D M Memory (1981, 1983) explored the effectiveness of adjunct aids in enhancing reading comprehension among sixth-grade students The research highlighted a comparison between low-average and good readers, demonstrating how main idea prequestions served as beneficial adjunct aids for middle-grade readers These findings, published in reputable educational journals, underscore the importance of tailored instructional strategies to support diverse reading abilities in educational settings.
Peeck, J (1970) Effect of prequestions on delayed retention of prose material Journal of
Pressley, M., Tanenbaum, R., McDaniel, M A., & Wood, E (1990) What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material?
Pyc, M A., & Rawson, K A (2010) Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis Science, 330, 335-335
Roediger, H L., III., & Butler, A.C (2011) The critical role of retrieval practice in long- term retention Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20 –27
Roediger, H L., III., & Karpicke, J D (2006) The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210
Rickards, J P (1976) Interaction of position and conceptual level of adjunct questions on immediate and delayed retention of text Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 210-217
Rickards, J P (1977) On inserting questions before or after segments of text Contemporary
Richland, L E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L S (2009) The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Rowland, C A (2014) The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463
Sagaria, S D., & Di Vesta, F J (1978) Learner expectations induced by adjunct questions and the retrieval of intentional and incidental information Journal of Educational
Shanahan, T (1986) Predictions and the limiting effects of prequestions National Reading
Shavelson, R J., Berliner, D C., Ravitch, M M., & Loeding, D (1974) Effects of position and type of question on learning from prose material: Interaction of treatment with individual differences Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(1), 40-48
Szpunar, K K., Jing, H G., & Schacter, D L (2014) Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications of interpolated testing for online education Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161-164.