prequestions before learning
This evidence decision is attached to the maintained Brali entry above. The public protocol may be narrowed, reviewed, or kept practical according to the decision.
Evidence Ledger · Protocol candidate · reviewed 2026-09-15
The Effect of Prequestions on Learning: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis
The reviewed source can support a conservative practical protocol.
Brali decision: Protocol candidate. This page summarizes a reviewed evidence boundary; it does not reproduce the source and it does not turn one paper into a universal prescription.
What the source supports
Prequestions can improve later learning of the specific information they target. The meta-analysis reported g = 0.66 for prequestioned information and g = 0.01 for non-prequestioned information; feedback alongside prequestions was associated with stronger targeted learning.
What it does not establish
- Prequestions improve learning of the entire lesson.
- Any question asked before learning will be beneficial.
- There is one evidence-backed optimal number of prequestions.
- A wrong first answer is itself sufficient without later exposure or correction.
- Prequestions replace retrieval practice, practice problems, or feedback after learning.
Important limitations
- The average benefit is specific to prequestioned information rather than a broad benefit to all content.
- The meta-analysis does not establish one universal question count, timing rule, or content format.
- Effect sizes summarize heterogeneous studies and do not guarantee the same result for an individual learning session.
Source context
The Effect of Prequestions on Learning: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis
- Source type: meta-analysis
- Design: Multilevel meta-analysis of the prequestion literature examining learning of prequestioned and non-prequestioned content across variations in learning event, participant sample, and assessment conditions.
- Population: Learners represented across the studies included in the meta-analysis; the practical protocol is intentionally population-neutral and does not convert subgroup findings into a universal dose.
- Exposure / intervention: Questions attempted before an educational activity, compared with conditions without those prequestions; some study conditions also provided feedback.
- Outcomes: Learning of prequestioned information; Learning of non-prequestioned information
Citation: King-Shepard QW, Walker J, Nokes-Malach TJ, Carpenter SK, Fraundorf SH. Educational Psychology Review. 2025;37:115.
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10075-7
What this changes in Brali
Editorial note: Editorial action: publish a new Skill Sprint protocol because no prequestion/pretesting surface was found in the canonical index or override layer. Make the target-versus-nontarget boundary prominent.
Use the boundary, not just the headline
When an AI agent or a person retrieves this decision, preserve both the supported claim and the unsupported or overstated claims. Dropping the boundary would turn a reviewed source into a stronger claim than Brali actually maintains.
All Evidence Decisions → · Research & trends → · Machine-readable review →