# Countering the Novelty Effect: A Tutorial for Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environments
## 4 Results  
All the data analyzed in this section are collated in Appendix A included in Supplementary Materials.  
The results of the usability and satisfaction survey are shown below in Table 2, for which a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale was converted into a proportional scale from 1 to 10. 'No answer' was recorded as 0. Table 2 includes the mean values and their standard deviations for each component (engagement, presence, flow, immersion, and skill) for the three student groups and all the students were treated as one single group for statistical analysis. The highest values are highlighted in bold and statistical differences (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05) between components in the single group related to the low component (flow) are marked with an asterisk. Figure 8 plots the results included in Table 2 in a radar plot.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VET (\(n\) = 10)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**HNC (\(n\) = 11)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BA (\(n\) = 44)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average (\(n\) = 65)**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** \\ \hline
**Engagement** & 7.97 & 1.87 & **8.82** & 1.45 & 8.27 & 1.86 & 8.32 * & 1.89 \\
**Presence** & 7.66 & 2.08 & **8.04** & 1.65 & 7.29 & 2.30 & 7.47 & 2.24 \\
**Flow** & **7.10** & 1.83 & 7.00 & 1.53 & 6.24 & 1.53 & 6.50 & 1.66 \\
**Immersion** & 8.23 & 1.98 & **8.48** & 1.60 & 7.91 & 2.44 & 8.06 & 2.25 \\
**Skill** & 8.61 & 1.80 & **9.24** & 1.46 & 8.35 & 2.15 & 8.54 * & 2.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
*: statistical difference (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05) between this component and the lowest component (flow).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of satisfaction and usability survey of the three groups and for all the students treated as one single group.  
Table 2 and Figure 8 show the highest results that correspond to the HNC. Also, the component whose average has the highest rate is skill (8.54), followed by engagement (8.32), immersion (8.06), and presence (7.47). The lowest rating component is flow (6.50). In addition, the standard deviation shows a high disproportion of the three groups.  
Furthermore, cybersickness was evaluated by participants. Cybersickness was rated on a 1-to-4 Likert scale. As some participants noted some of the symptoms of cybersickness (i.e., visual fatigue, headache, sweating, disorientation, nausea, and full stomach [49]), each symptom was classified according to its selected cybersickness level (in the Likert scale of the survey: 1 low; 2 medium; 3 high; 4 no cybersickness). The usability and satisfaction survey results for the four groups are shown in Table 3 through the mean score of each component and the percentile difference of each cybersickness group with respect to the non-cybersickness group. The average of the five components was also included for each group. These data are depicted in Figure 9 in a radar graph to illustrate these values and visualize their differences. In this figure, the values for low and strong cybersickness are normalized to the no-cybersickness group (blue line: 100% in Figure 9) and plot in terms of percentages.  
As Table 3 and Figure 9 show, the strong cybersickness participant has evaluated the experience with the worst results. Flow is the most affected component (3.00) and the least affected one is engagement (7.33).