Cueing in the immersive VR environment showed no detrimental effect on learners' mental spatial representation of the 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? None of three mental spatial representation analyses (first-hit success, total mistakes, T50 search times) supported the hypothesized detrimental effect of cueing. → 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 91-participant VR experiment, a mental spatial representation test in a replica environment recorded first-hit success, mistakes, and T50 search times. The mistakes analysis "did not reveal an effect of cueing, F < 1"; the first-hit analysis (F(2, 88) = 1.54, p = 0.220) and the T50 analysis (F < 1) also showed no effect.

"The second analysis regarding the total number of mistakes participants made in the selection of the correct object placeholder also did not reveal an effect of cueing, F < 1."

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
• Neither the pedagogical agent cue nor the light cue improved learning outcomes in the immersive VR dual-task environment — related
• Cueing did not reduce learners' self-rated cognitive load in the immersive VR dual-task environment — related