Corrective feedback plus either GLA significantly improved students' safety behavior in VR, with no difference between re-experiencing and self-explaining¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0–i3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Both GLA groups showed a large, significant improvement in remembering safety instructions (gloves and lab coat) from after the lesson to after the GLA. → Valdemar Stenberdt 2025 q3 i0 There were no significant differences between the re-experiencing and self-explaining groups in how well they remembered safety instructions. → Valdemar Stenberdt 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Valdemar Stenberdt 2025¶

Valdemar Stenberdt, Ban Mouid Shiwalia, Guido Makransky. (2025). Re-Experiencing vs. Self-Explaining: Comparing Generative Learning Activities in VR. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10096-2

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Pre-registered between-subjects experiment with 161 high school students learning pipetting in immersive VR; the safety analysis included 152 participants. Post-hoc t-tests on the mixed ANOVA showed both groups "significantly improved from after the lesson to after the GLA" with large effects (re-experiencing d = −1.15; self-explaining d = 1.18), surviving Bonferroni correction.

"the re-experienc - ing group significantly improved from after the lesson to after the GLA, p < 0.001, d = −1.15, 95% CI = [−1.50, −0.80], and that the self-explaining group also improved significantly from after the lesson to after the GLA, p < 0.001, d = 1.18"

Valdemar Stenberdt 2025 (2)¶

Valdemar Stenberdt, Ban Mouid Shiwalia, Guido Makransky. (2025). Re-Experiencing vs. Self-Explaining: Comparing Generative Learning Activities in VR. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10096-2

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Same safety analysis in the VR pipetting experiment: the mixed ANOVA showed "no significant differences in how well the two groups remembered safety instructions" (ηp2 = 0.001); the article also reports no Condition × Time interaction.

"However, there were no significant differences in how well the two groups remembered safety instructions, F(1, 150) = 0.160, p = 0.690, ηp2 = 0.001"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Safety — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Both GLAs significantly reduced dexterity errors over time; the between-group difference after the GLA was not significant after Bonferroni correction — related
• Both GLA groups showed a large, significant increase in pipetting self-efficacy, with no difference between conditions — related
• Serial dilution accuracy showed a small significant increase over time, but post-hoc tests detected no significant improvement in either group — related
• Exploratory correlations suggest embodiment was specifically relevant in the re-experiencing group, correlating with written procedural knowledge and post-test self-efficacy — related
• Self-explaining led to significantly higher written procedural knowledge than re-experiencing, opposite to the hypothesized direction — related
• No significant differences between VR-based and conventional training in operational understanding, technical skills, or system usability — related
• Conventional training received significantly higher ratings for perceived realism and immersion than VR-based training (r=0.774) — related