Pre Questioning¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 5 studies (2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q3 · 2 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

Pre questioning presents learners with questions about upcoming material before they study it or receive instruction. Learners typically answer incorrectly or guess, but the attempt itself prepares them to learn: it activates relevant prior knowledge, directs attention to the questioned content, and creates a curiosity gap that instruction then fills. The questions are usually closed-ended (multiple choice or short answer) and target the key concepts of the lesson.

Design Implications¶

Pre questioning works through two complementary mechanisms: it functions as a pretesting event that potentiates later encoding of the tested content Unsuccessful retrieval attempts before study enhance subsequent learning of that content. [+S], and it acts as an advance organizer that focuses attention during instruction Advance organizers improve learning. [+M]. Benefits are strongest for the specific content the prequestions target; effects on related but untested content are smaller and less consistent [~M]. Because learners often answer incorrectly, prequestions should be framed as low-stakes guesses, with feedback or instruction following immediately.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Questions targeting the central concepts of the upcoming lesson, not trivia
• A low-stakes framing — learners must feel free to guess without penalty
• Prompt follow-through: instruction or feedback that resolves the questions soon after they are posed
• Alignment between prequestion content and the learning goals (and ideally the assessment)

Constraints¶

• Attention benefits are content-specific: prequestions can draw attention away from untested material presented nearby [~S] — learners may under-encode information adjacent to the prequestioned content
• Guessing without any relevant prior knowledge yields weaker benefits than guessing from partial knowledge [~M]
• If prequestions are graded or framed as tests of what learners "should know," they can create anxiety and discourage the productive guessing the strategy depends on [-M]
• Overly difficult or ambiguous prequestions can frustrate learners and consume working memory without potentiating learning [-W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Multiple-choice prequestions — plausible distractors make guessing productive even with weak prior knowledge
• Open-ended prequestions — harder to answer, but generate stronger curiosity and richer activation of prior knowledge
• Prequestions embedded in video or reading — interspersed before each segment rather than all up front
• Instructor-posed oral questions at the start of a lesson, functioning as a whole-class activation routine

Target Learners¶

• Learners with partial or fragmented prior knowledge, whose guesses activate relevant schemas Activation of prior knowledge improves learning. [+M]
• Novices benefit from the attention-focusing function; experts may find prequestions redundant with their existing knowledge structures [~W]
• Younger learners and multimedia contexts, where attention guidance has outsized value [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Factual and conceptual knowledge: prequestions most reliably improve retention of the questioned content [+S]
• Attention allocation and selective encoding during lectures, videos, and readings
• Curiosity and engagement: unresolved questions create a knowledge gap that motivates attention [+W]

Instructions¶

1. Identify the 2–4 core concepts of the upcoming lesson and write one closed-ended question per concept (Advance Organizers).
2. Present the questions before instruction, explicitly framing them as guesses: "You're not expected to know these yet — commit to your best guess."
3. Collect answers briefly (show of hands, clicker, quick write) without correcting them yet (Activation).
4. Proceed with instruction, explicitly returning to each question when the answer emerges ("Remember the question about X? Now you can answer it").
5. Follow with Practice or Assessment that revisits the prequestioned concepts.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — prequestions are a question-based method of achieving the same activation
• Retrieval Practice — prequestions apply retrieval principles before study rather than after; the same testing effect operates in both directions
• Advance Organizers — a non-question alternative for orienting learners before instruction
• Implement a comprehension-test-expectancy intervention by explicitly describing upcoming inference tests and providing sample inference questions
• Present problems before explanatory texts to arouse curiosity and situational interest in learners lacking prior knowledge

Examples¶

• Prelecture quizzes in large STEM courses — instructors assign 3–5 multiple-choice prequestions before each lecture (common in flipped and peer-instruction courses); lecture time then resolves the questions.
• Khan Academy — unit-opening "Get ready" exercises prime the prerequisite skills and concepts before new instruction begins.
• Video learning with embedded prequestions — platforms such as Edpuzzle allow instructors to insert a question before a video segment, so learners watch with the question in mind.

Key Sources¶

• Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. doi:10.1037/a0015729
• Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 243–257. doi:10.1037/a0016496
• Carpenter, S. K., & Toftness, A. R. (2017). The effect of prequestions on learning from video presentations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(1), 104–109. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.014
• Pressley, M., et al. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91–109. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7