Neither the pedagogical agent cue nor the light cue improved learning outcomes in the immersive VR dual-task environment¶

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¶

q3 i? Contrary to hypotheses, cueing had no significant effect on knowledge test performance in immersive VR. → 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

In the same 91-participant pre-registered between-subjects VR experiment, the knowledge test (22 open-ended questions, two per search object) showed "no significant effect of cueing for the learning outcomes"; no effect size beyond ηp2 =.02 was printed, so no magnitude is asserted.

"In contrast to Hypotheses 2a and 2b, the ANOVA revealed no significant effect of cueing for the learning outcomes (M = 6.68, SD = 3.38), F(2, 88) = 1.10, p = 0.336, ηp2 =.02."

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
• Cueing did not reduce learners' self-rated cognitive load 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
• The pedagogical agent cue reduced physical presence compared to no cueing and self-presence compared to both other conditions — related
• Increased perceptual fidelity fails to reliably improve serious game learning outcomes (the fidelity fallacy) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Neither immersion nor interactivity produced significant effects on transfer measures — related