Pedagogical agents have a small, statistically significant positive effect on learners' broadly defined 'motivation' (g = 0.20)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Across 84 comparisons from 22 studies, PAs showed a small but statistically significant effect on broadly defined motivation measures (g = 0.20, p = 0.03). → 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 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Three-level meta-analysis with correlated and hierarchical effects and robust variance estimation of studies comparing PA to non-PA conditions on unspecified motivation measures. The pooled effect was "g = 0.20, p = 0.03" with significant heterogeneity (Q(83) = 294.90).

"The random effects 3LMA with CHERVE examining the impact of PAs on learners' "motivation" showed that PAs have a small but statistically significant effect (g = 0.20, p = 0.03, kcomparisons = 84, kstudies = 22)."

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 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis within the broad-motivation 3LMA found facial expressions significantly moderated the effect; PAs with facial expressions showed g = 0.33 (p = 0.03) while those without showed no significant effect.

"We found that whether or not PAs used facial expressions significantly moderated the impact of PAs on learners' "motivation" (F(2.00, 4.52) = 32.06, p < 0.01). Specifically, PAs with facial expressions improved learners' "motivation" (g = 0.33, p = 0.03), whereas those without facial expressions had no significant effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pedagogical agents significantly improve learners' interest (g = 0.30), with the effect depending on the type of control condition — 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' engagement (g = -0.02, non-significant) — related
• Pedagogical agents show essentially no effect on learners' intrinsic motivation (g = 0.00) — related
• Pedagogical agents do not significantly affect learners' value beliefs (g = 0.09, non-significant) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Pedagogical agents show a small-to-moderate but non-significant effect on learners' utility beliefs (g = 0.34, p = 0.05) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Pedagogical agents enhance learning compared with learning environments that do not feature agents — related
• Learning with multimedia pedagogical agents is more effective than learning without these agents, with a small overall effect (g+ = 0.20) — related