How Pretesting Students Helps Retain Their Attention
Updated May 28, 2026
Online lectures make attention fragile. Students may be watching from busy rooms, switching between tabs or trying to study around work and caring responsibilities. Pan, Schmitt, Bjork and Sana's study is useful because it tests a small design change that can help: asking students questions before the relevant material is taught.
The problem is mind-wandering. In lecture settings, attention can drift from the material towards unrelated thoughts, and previous studies suggest this happens to a substantial share of students at any given point. Online learning can make the problem sharper because the physical cues of the classroom are weaker and distractions are closer.
Pretesting looks odd at first. Students are asked questions before they are expected to know the answers. The point is not to grade prior knowledge. The point is to create a gap that students then want to close. A pre-question tells students what to listen for and can make the later explanation feel more purposeful.
What the study shows
The authors ran two experiments using video lectures. In the first, students watched a 26-minute lecture split into four parts. Before each section, one group answered pretest questions about the next section, while the control group completed unrelated algebra problems. Everyone then completed the same final test.
The second experiment tested the same idea in a more realistic online setting. It compared three groups: a control group, an interpolated pretest group that received questions before each section, and a conventional pretest group that received all questions before the lecture began.
The result is practical rather than spectacular. Both pretesting approaches improved learning compared with the control condition, and there was no meaningful difference between giving all questions at the start and spacing them through the lecture. That gives lecturers flexibility. A short pre-quiz can sit before a video, or questions can be placed between sections.
The attention finding is the more useful design signal. Across the lecture, students in the pretest groups reported attention levels around 8 to 21% higher than the control group. Attention still fell over time, but it fell from a stronger starting point.
This is why pretesting fits online teaching. It does not require a full redesign of the module. It adds small moments of purpose before students encounter the material.
What universities can do with this
Pretesting should be low stakes. If students feel they are being punished for not already knowing the content, the method will become counterproductive. The introduction should make the purpose explicit: the questions are there to prepare attention and curiosity, not to judge ability.
Questions should be selective. A pretest does not need to cover every detail in the lecture. It should point students towards the central ideas, common misconceptions or difficult distinctions. Too many questions can make the activity feel like busywork.
For recorded lectures, the easiest version is a short quiz before the video starts. For live online sessions, questions can be placed before each major section or used as polls during the session. In both cases, the lecturer should return to the questions when the answers appear, so students can see the connection.
Student comments can show whether the balance is right. Useful prompts include: did the pre-questions help you focus, did they feel manageable, and did they make the lecture easier to follow? If students describe the questions as confusing or punitive, the framing needs work.
Limits of the evidence
Pretesting will not solve every attention problem. Poor pacing, unclear explanations and long passive videos will still lose students. The study shows that pre-questions can help attention and recall, but they work best as part of a wider approach to online lecture design.
FAQ
Q: Should pretest questions be graded?
A: Usually no. The safest use is low stakes or ungraded. The value is in priming attention, not rewarding students who already know the answer.
Q: Where should the questions go?
A: Either before the full lecture or before each section. The study found both approaches can work, so the better choice depends on the format of the teaching.
Q: What makes a good pretest question?
A: It should point to an important idea, common misconception or decision students will need to make later. A handful of well-chosen questions is better than a long quiz.
References
Bixler, R., & D’Mello, S. (2015). Automatic gaze-based detection of mind wandering with metacognitive awareness. International Conference on User Modelling, Adaptation, and Personalization, 31–43.
Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 1438–1443.
DOI: 10.1021/ed100409p
Carpenter, S. K., & Toftness, A. R. (2017). The effect of pre-questions on learning from video presentations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 104–109.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.014
Geller, J., Carpenter, S. K., Lamm, M. H., Rahman, S., Armstrong, P. I., & Coffman, C. R. (2017). Prequestions do not enhance the benefits of retrieval in a STEM classroom. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 42.
DOI: 10.1186/s41235-017-0078-z
Hollis, R. B., & Was, C. A. (2016). Mind wandering, control failures, and social media distractions in online learning. Learning and Instruction, 42, 104–112.
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.007
Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989–998.
DOI: 10.1037/a0015729
Pan, S. C., Lovelett, J., Stoeckenius, D., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Conditions of highly specific learning through cued recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 634–640.
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01593-x
Pan, S. C., Schmitt, A. G., Bjork, E. L., & Sana, F. (2020). Pretesting reduces mind wandering and enhances learning during online lectures. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9, 542–554.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.07.004
Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 243–257.
DOI: 10.1037/a0016496
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variation in mind-wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 234–242.
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1814
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958.
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946
St. Hilaire, K. J., Carpenter, S. K., & Jennings, J. M. (2019). Using prequestions to enhance learning from reading passages: The roles of question type and structure building ability. Memory, 27, 1204–1213.
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1641209
Thomson, D. R., Seli, P., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2014). On the link between mind wandering and task performance over time. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 14–26.
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.001
Toftness, A. R., Carpenter, S. K., Lauber, S., & Mickes, L. (2018). The limited effects of prequestions on learning from authentic lecture videos. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 370–378.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.06.003
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround