Did he really say that?

Post Archive (6-Dec-2008)

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.

The post sent me off, and I realized I needed to let it cool a little before I responded. I needed to respond unemotionally to his posting. So, here goes.

If pre-tests are learner abuse, let’s find similar analogies.

Pre-employment screening tests are employee abuse.
Medical tests used for diagnostics are patient abuse.
Scholastic tests used to screen college applicants are student abuse.

In a nutshell, Clark Quinn is unfortunately wrong. Now, I will speak for him in that I will interpret what I think he meant. Because, what he follows up with are two examples of pre-tests. One, he states that pre-tests are used as, “…as an advance organizer, activating relevant knowledge.” Clark argues against this technique as being cruel, and their being better ways. What is unfortunate is that people have ABUSED David Ausabel’s work on Advanced Organizers. I have seen this sort of pre-test, but I believe it to be an advanced organizer in attribution only. WikEd has a great article on Advanced Organizers as they should be done.

Two, Clark states that pre-tests are used, “… to show the delta from before and after the learning experience.” This is where I think Clark is most wrong. This is critical information. But, where I think Clark is right and might have intended to say is that these sort of pre-tests should not happen perpetually. For example, if someone is designing a new course that has never been taught, it is valid (and I would argue essential) to have pre-tests and post-tests to show improvement in the expected range. If someone is designing a new version of the course, pre-tests and post-tests in comparison of course versions would be essential information. Now, if you decide to continue those tests as “just part of the course” then the designer or instructor that allows this to happen is just being abusive.

So, PLEASE do not throw out a perfectly valid technique just because some people abuse it or equate it to something it is not. Use it. Use it properly. Improve your learning. And in the immortal words of James Bond, never says never again.

clarkquinn Says:

Bill, I said it, and I meant it. (BTW, those analogies are not valid, and I did my PhD thesis on analogy :). I can see assessment (e.g. tests) as part of the analysis phase of development, but not built into the content that results. For the reasons I explain.

Let me be clear; I mean pre-tests that are automatically included as part of a delivered elearning course (speficifically asynchronous courses). It’s an all too common occurrence, and the reasons people give are the reasons I’ve argued against.

Except for allowing testing out, I think pre-tests should not be part of regular learning delivery (with caveats: opt-outs, and when they’re done well as problem/case-based learning; but I made those caveats).

So, we probably agree more than we disagree (ie that they’re not good preparation, and that they shouldn’t be perpetual), but the way people DO use them, e.g. putting automatic pre-tests a)as a substitute for good advance organizers or b) to show a delta, are weak (and abusive) substitutes for the right approach.

I’ll definitely agree with the conclusion: use it properly. Thanks for the challenge!

Admin Says:
Clark,
As we chatted in email, I knew I had to have misunderstood. I saw your blanket rejection of pre-tests as unsupportable. But, we agree that including pre-tests in asynchronous e-learning is a crutch for poor instructional design. Or a misunderstanding of pre-tests by a customer who demands their e-learning vendor/developer put them into the course. Thanks for the clarification.