Pre-Test and Re-Test Scores in Retention Calculation

EXAMINATION OF several studies in retention will reveal certain methodological procedures characteristic of the conventional method for the calculation of percent retention of meaningful material. The calculation of percent retention is accom plished in the conventional method by adminis tering a pre-test to the students who are to take the course, in order to determine how much course information is known in advance of course presentation. The student then takes the course. At the end of the course a final examination is ad ministered, and in order to determine how much the student learned in the course, his pre-test score is subtracted from his final examination score. At some later time--six months, one year, two years, five years--a re-test is given the student. The score on this re-test minus the original pre-test score equals a score represent ing the amount of information retained of informa tion learned in the course. The percent retention is then calculated by dividing the score for ma terial retained of material learned in the course by the score for material learned in the course. Research evidence indicates, however, that forgetting is a function of activities prior to the learning, as well as activities subsequent to the learning. We may assume that this appl i es not only to learning in a course, but also to material of the course that was known before the course was taken. In other words, a score on a course pre-test would be expected to change because of activities prior to, and subsequent to the learning represented by such a score. The assumption may be made, therefore, that a score for items answered correctly on a pre-test will show change (drop) for those same items on the post-test and on the later or delayed re-test. This is an ac cepted truism concerning material learned in a course and should apply to material of the course that was known or learned before the course was started. Research evidence indicates also t h at under certain conditions the passage of time results in an improvement, rather than adecrement, in performance. Although Ballard's study may be criticized for its inadequate control of pr ac t i c e and rehearsal, it does suggest that improvement may take place between course c o m p 1 e tion and administration of a later or delayed re-test. The assumption may be made, therefore, that between the time of post-test administration at the time of course completion, and the administration of the later or delayed re-test, some learning will take place. We need not go into the problem of whe ther the learning was delayed course learning, new learning entirely, or a combination of both. Applying the above research evidence to the calculation of percent retention we have a pre test score which is comprised of the items ans wered correctly at the time of pre-test adminis tration; a post-test score which is comprised of two scores: 1) a score representing what is re tained of what was known before the course was taken, 2) a score representing what is known as a result of course learning; and a delayed re-test score which is made up of t h r e e scores: 1) a score representing what is retained o f what was known before the course was t a k en, 2) a score representing what is retained of what was learned in the course, 3) a score representing what is learned after the course is completed.