Cueing did not reduce learners' self-rated cognitive load in the immersive VR dual-task environment¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Explorative ANOVAs found no significant effects of cueing on intrinsic, germane, or any extraneous cognitive load subscale. → 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 · r2

Explorative cognitive load evaluation using the Andersen and Makransky (2021) VR-adapted scale in the 91-participant experiment found "no observed effects of cueing on intrinsic cognitive load" or germane load; extraneous load subscales for environment and instruction showed F < 1, and interaction load was non-significant (p =.070).

"Specifically, there were no observed effects of cueing on intrinsic cognitive load (M = 3.32, SD = 2.59), F < 1, germane cognitive load (M = 3.45, SD = 2.47), F(2, 88) = 1.34, p = 0.268, ηp2 =.03"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In an immersive VR dual-task search-and-learning environment, both a pedagogical agent cue and a light cue produced faster search times than no cueing — related
• No difference in extraneous cognitive load between modality conditions in VR, contrary to the modality principle — related
• Neither the pedagogical agent cue nor the light cue improved learning outcomes in the immersive VR dual-task environment — related
• Cueing in the immersive VR environment showed no detrimental effect on learners' mental spatial representation of the environment — related