## 3 Materials and Methods
RQ3 is investigated by testing hypothesis H4. The hypotheses are as follows:  
* H1--the previous knowledge of the groups is the same on production sequencing. The hypothesis alternative is H11--there is a difference in the previous knowledge between the groups on production sequencing. * H2--the knowledge of the groups on production sequencing did not vary after classes. The hypothesis alternative is H21--there is a difference between the current and previous knowledge of groups on production sequencing after classes. * H3--the learning levels of the groups on production sequencing after classes are the same. The hypothesis alternative is H31--there is a difference between the learning levels of the groups on production sequencing after classes. * H4--the retention of knowledge by the groups on production sequencing is the same three weeks after classes. The hypothesis alternative is H41--there is a difference between the retention of knowledge of the groups on production sequencing after three weeks. Figure 1: Stages of development and application of the VR artifact. The \(p\)-value must be <0.01 in all evaluations to accept the alternative hypothesis. A preliminary test was conducted to gauge the existing knowledge of both groups. Following the third meeting, a subsequent test was administered to assess the learning progress of each group. Lastly, three weeks after the conclusion of the last class, a test measured the retention of knowledge among the groups. All tests were scored on a scale from 0.00 to 10.00. Table 1 shows the quantitative method utilized to compare the groups, which was the Student's \(t\)-test, and the findings. The \(t\)-test was selected to determine if the difference in means is statistically significant [77]. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data from each group based on their prior knowledge and retention. To accept the alternative hypothesis, a significance level of \(\alpha=1\%\) was applied to all tests. SPSS version 22 was used for the analysis. The results of the normality tests can be found in Appendix A. In the final stage, the experimental group received a questionnaire consisting of 12 questions. The questions were divided into three blocks concerning issues related to satisfaction (questions 1-4), engagement (questions 5-8), and attractiveness (questions 9-12). The Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 7, was used for the questionnaire. The Likert scale is a widely used tool in research to measure people's attitudes and opinions. It provides a systematic method for quantifying subjective perspectives, ensuring a balanced range of choices. It includes a central neutral point surrounded by an equal number of options on each side of the scale [78]. The questionnaire and scale are available in Appendix B. Six qualitative questions were utilized to assess students' perceptions of satisfaction, appeal, and involvement in using VR for teaching and learning. Qualitative responses were categorized according to at least one keyword: ease of comprehension, realism, increased class dynamism, attractiveness, engagement, willingness to participate, scenario-based examples, class interest, reduced boredom, enjoyable experience, enhanced class participation, motivation, attentiveness, and positive impact on happiness. References [29; 30; 34; 79; 80; 81] provide empirical evidence on the feasibility and applicability of the questions, ensuring the validity of the questionnaire. Previous empirical studies involving the aspects captured by the questions ensure that the involved issues are likely to be found in such an experiment. The quantitative part of the questionnaire was structured into three blocks that focused on aspects related, respectively, to satisfaction, engagement, and attractiveness of the application. [PERSON]'s alpha calculation helped to assess the reliability of the responses. The reliability was confirmed as all alphas are greater than 0.60 [76] (0.73, 0.83, and 0.69, respectively).