Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles

Null effects of pre-training may be attributed to specific conditions that limit its utility, such as high level of learners' prior knowledge, since learners already know the information covered during pre-training.

“Some studies have also shown that null effects of pre-training may be attributed to specific conditions that limit the utility of pre-training, such as high level of learners’ prior knowledge, since learners already know the information covered during pre-training (Mayer and Pilegard, 2014)”

Some previous studies have reported no effect of pre-training, ascribing it to boundary conditions where pre-training might not be an effective tool.

“This is inconsistent with most literature (Mayer, 2017); however, some previous studies have reported no e ff ect of pre-training (Mayer & Pilegard, 2014), ascribing it to boundary conditions where pre-training might not be an e ff ective tool.”

Pre-test measures of knowledge or self-efficacy could prime students in specific ways and thus influence the learning session and subsequent responses.

“A pre-test measure of self-e ffi cacy was not included based on the perspective that pre-test measures of knowledge or self-e ffi cacy could prime students in speci fi c ways and thus in fl uence the learning session and subsequent responses (Mayer, 2014).”

Mayer and Pilegard (2014) found a medium effect size of pre-training (d=0.75).

“In their review of the current literature, Mayer and Pilegard (2014) found a medium e ff ect size of pre-training ( d =0.75), while Mayer (2017) reports a more conservative e ff ect size of d = 0.46.”

Some previous studies have shown a large effect on knowledge when the pre-training included more extensive information on the subject taught in the learning scenario.

“While no consensus or best practice for pre-training exist, some previous studies have shown a large e ff ect on knowledge when the pre-training included more extensive information on the subject taught in the learning scenario (Mayer & Pilegard, 2014).”

Boundary conditions where pre-training might not be effective include cases where learners possess pre-existing knowledge of the subject, when it is more efficient to have the pre-training material presented simultaneously with the learning material, or cases where the material does not require sufficient mental effort to learn.

“These include cases where learners possess pre-existing knowledge of the subject (Mayer & Pilegard, 2014), when it is more e ffi cient to have the pre-training material presented simultaneously with the learning material; or cases where the material does not require su ffi cient mental e ff ort to learn (Kester, Kirschner, & Van Merriënboer, 2004).”

Pre-training often reduces intrinsic cognitive load and prepares learners for more complex tasks.

“Pre-training, in contrast, provides new but foundational information before the main learning activity, often to reduce ICL and prepare learners for more complex tasks (Mayer and Pilegard, 2014).”

Pre-training was particularly beneficial for learners with low levels of prior knowledge.

“Previous research shows that pre-training was particularly beneficial for learners with low levels of prior knowledge (Mayer and Pilegard, 2014).”