Pedagogical agents do not significantly affect learners' value beliefs (g = 0.09, non-significant)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across 25 comparisons from 9 studies, PAs showed a small, non-significant effect on value beliefs (g = 0.09, p = 0.40). → Gladstone 2025

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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Three-level meta-analysis with CHERVE of PA-versus-non-PA comparisons measuring value beliefs/task relevance. The pooled effect was non-significant with significant heterogeneity (Q(24) = 58.91, p < 0.001).

"The random effects 3LMA with CHERVE exploring the impact of PAs on learners' value beliefs showed that PAs have a small, non-significant effect (g = 0.09, p = 0.40, kcomparisons = 25, kstudies = 9)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 show essentially no effect on learners' intrinsic motivation (g = 0.00) — 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 do not significantly affect learners' engagement (g = -0.02, non-significant) — related
• Pedagogical agents have a small, statistically significant positive effect on learners' broadly defined 'motivation' (g = 0.20) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Pedagogical agents significantly improve learners' interest (g = 0.30), with the effect depending on the type of control condition — related