{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0186219739292365, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00186219739292365, 'mean_word_length': 5.98051948051948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using the retrospective pretest to get usable, indirect evidence of student learning

Minimal evidence exists regarding the retrospective pretest’s effectiveness as a tool to obtain usable, indirect evidence of student learning in open admissions institutions. The researcher conducted this study to determine if a retrospective pretest more accurately detected a change in students’ knowledge compared to a conventional pretest–posttest. The researcher designed a 17‐item inventory covering course objectives, and students were randomly assigned to either a retrospective pretest (referred to as post‐then) or a conventional pretest–posttest group. Findings indicated that participants in the post‐then group reported a greater change in knowledge compared to the conventional group. This finding supported the use of the retrospective pretest as a tool for getting usable, indirect evidence of student learning. Future research needs to examine response effect, alternative ways of calculating treatment effect and the confounding influences of other perceptual variables.