Sustained attention, not learning condition, was the strongest predictor of children's word recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 SART score had a significant main effect on word recall (partial η² = 0.13), and adding it to the model rendered the learning-condition effect non-significant. → Rudling 2026 q3 i3 SART correlated positively with PC recall (r = 0.38) but not VR recall (r = 0.17). → Rudling 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Rudling 2026¶

Rudling, M., Rumetshofer, T., Nirme, J. & Mårtensson, J. (2026). Embodied Word Learning in Schools and Sustained Attention in Virtual Reality. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00395-2

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Repeated measures ANOVA in the crossover school study; the SART main effect had partial η² = 0.13. When SART was added, "the main effect of the learning condition was no longer significant" (F(1,68) < 0.01, p = 0.972).

"The main effect of the SART score on word recall was significant (F(1,68) = 9.87, p = 0.002, partial 2 = 0.13), while the interaction between learning condition (PC or VR) and SART score was not (F(1,68) = 2.38, p = 0.128, partial 2 = 0.03)."

Rudling 2026 (2)¶

Rudling, M., Rumetshofer, T., Nirme, J. & Mårtensson, J. (2026). Embodied Word Learning in Schools and Sustained Attention in Virtual Reality. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00395-2

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Bootstrapped correlation analyses in the same crossover study. Sustained attention correlated with PC recall at r = 0.38 (a printed correlation effect size) but not VR recall (r = 0.17, p = 0.150); VR and PC recall correlated with each other (r = 0.25, p = 0.039).

"The only other variable that significantly correlated with the recall scores was sustained attention, measured by the SART score, which was positively correlated with the PC recall score (r = 0.38, p = 0.001, 95% BCaCI = 0.14; 0.59, n = 72) but not the VR recall score (r = 0.17, p = 0.150, 95% BCaCI = -0.08; 0.44, n = 71)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• The PC-over-VR recall difference was significant only for children with higher sustained attention — related
• PC-based passive viewing yielded higher word recall than embodied VR assembly training in school-aged children — related
• Sustained attention positively predicts reading comprehension assessed in group-based school settings — related
• VR behavioural measures (word gaze, assembly time, rotation) did not predict word learning outcomes — related