Claims

The pedagogical agent cue reduced physical presence compared to no cueing and self-presence compared to both other conditions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The pedagogical agent cue lowered self-presence relative to both the no-cue and light-cue conditions, and lowered physical presence relative to no cueing; social presence was unaffected. → Daniela Decker 2025

Evidence

Daniela Decker 2025

Daniela Decker, Martin Merkt. (2025). Look at me! Can a pedagogical agent facilitate orientation and support learning in VR? Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10531-9

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Presence was measured with the Makransky et al. (2017) scale in the 91-participant VR experiment. Physical presence showed a significant cueing effect, F(2,88) = 4.74, p =.011, ηp2 = 0.10, with the agent condition lower than no cueing; self-presence showed F(2, 88) = 4.47, p =.014, ηp2 =.09, with "lower self-presence for the pedagogical agent cueing condition" versus both other conditions.

"Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests also showed lower self-presence for the pedagogical agent cueing condition (M = 2.60, SD = 0.77) compared to the condition without cueing (M = 3.21, SD = 1.00), p =.039, and the light cueing condition (M = 3.24, SD = 0.98), p =.027."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.