Pedagogical agents significantly improve learners' interest (g = 0.30), with the effect depending on the type of control condition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Across 50 comparisons from 12 studies, PAs had a small-to-moderate significant effect on interest (g = 0.30, p = 0.01). → Gladstone 2025 q3 i2 PAs were significantly more effective than video-based interventions (g = 0.54) and no-intervention comparisons (g = 0.33) for interest, but not more effective than software without PAs (g = 0.26, p = 0.16), and significantly less effective than traditional training (g = -0.31, p = 0.02). → Gladstone 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Gladstone 2025¶

Gladstone, J. R., Schroeder, N. L., Heidig, S., Zhang, S., Palaguachi, C., & Pitera, M. (2025). Do Pedagogical Agents Enhance Student Motivation? Unraveling the Evidence Through Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10050-2

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Three-level meta-analysis with CHERVE of PA-versus-non-PA comparisons measuring interest. The pooled effect was significant with heterogeneity (Q(49) = 130.76, p < 0.001).

"A random effects 3LMA with CHERVE exploring the impact of PAs on learners' interest found that PAs have a small to moderate, statistically significant effect (g = 0.30, p = 0.01, kcomparisons = 50, kstudies = 12)."

Gladstone 2025 (2)¶

Gladstone, J. R., Schroeder, N. L., Heidig, S., Zhang, S., Palaguachi, C., & Pitera, M. (2025). Do Pedagogical Agents Enhance Student Motivation? Unraveling the Evidence Through Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10050-2

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Control-condition type significantly moderated interest effects (F(3.00, 3.06) = 400.67, p < 0.001). The traditional-training contrast rests on only one study with two comparisons.

"PAs were significantly more effective than video-based interventions (g = 0.54, p < 0.01) and no intervention comparisons (g = 0.33, p = 0.02). However, they were not significantly more effective than software programs without PAs (g = 0.26, p = 0.16), and they were significantly less effective than traditional training (g = − 0.31, p = 0.02)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pedagogical agents have a small, statistically significant positive effect on learners' broadly defined 'motivation' (g = 0.20) — related
• Pedagogical agents significantly improve learners' self-efficacy expectations (g = 0.29), with effects moderated by grade level, facial expressions, and reliability reporting — related
• Pedagogical agents do not significantly affect learners' value beliefs (g = 0.09, non-significant) — related
• Pedagogical agents enhance learning compared with learning environments that do not feature agents — related
• Pedagogical agents show a small-to-moderate but non-significant effect on learners' utility beliefs (g = 0.34, p = 0.05) — related
• Pedagogical agents show essentially no effect on learners' intrinsic motivation (g = 0.00) — related
• Pedagogical agents do not significantly affect learners' engagement (g = -0.02, non-significant) — related
• Effects of agent nonverbal behavior depend on the task: facial expressions were valuable for attitudinal learning but detrimental for procedural learning — related
• Learning with multimedia pedagogical agents is more effective than learning without these agents, with a small overall effect (g+ = 0.20) — related