## 4 Results
### Survey Results: Overall Reaction to the Approach  
Figure 7 presents descriptive statistics of the survey results (e.g., median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values) and p-values from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, covering perceived learning outcomes, VR content, trainers' actions, and the overall value of VR and asymmetric VR training. As expected, Wilcoxon Test demonstrated no significance for the statements, especially considering the Bonferroni correction.  
However, descriptive statistics and open-ended statements helped to evaluate the overall expert opinion about the topic. As result, the survey demonstrated a positive evaluation of the remote training with asymmetric VR; the participants found VR-based remote learning sessions to be _\"helpful, clear and easy\"_ (P7) and reviewed it as _\"an extra tool for sharing information\"_ (P9). Only one participant expressed a negative evaluation of some of the statements, but still mentioned that _\"It was very easy to understand all issues off training\"_ (P6).  
Nevertheless, the majority still evaluated the approach of using asymmetric VR for remote training sessions extremely positively; most participants agreed or strongly agreed that remote training lesson improved their understanding of the method (8/9), improved their understanding of safety-related issues (7/9), and was beneficial for their work in general (7/9). Further, more than half (6/9) agreed and two disagreed that remote lessons made it easier to concentrate on the topic. Staying concentrated while attending remote lessons was found to be an issue by several participants; one of them mentioned that it was _\"difficult to remain concentrated for a long time. Face to face is always better when we are  
Figure 7: Descriptive statistics of the survey data, presented on a 5-point Likert scale.  
talking about safety for installation\"_ (P5). Moreover, two participants expressed their concern about the remote nature of the lesson commenting that _\"you can't check if the trainee is really watching \"_ (P9) and _\"there is always a possibility that learners start to do something else\"_ (P1). On the opposite, one participant mentioned that VR content is less boring than the slides with technical documentation and pictures, which would be traditionally used for remote training sessions.  
As for the matter of using VR content in remote training lessons, eight participants agreed or strongly agreed that it is useful and clear/descriptive enough. Further, eight participants would like to see more VR content in future remote training, commenting that _\"I will use the VR in my remote training\"_ (P3), _\"use the asymmetric VR before a face-to-face training on-site\"_ (P5), and _\"we can even show it how to make installation of lift\"_ (P6). When evaluating the view of the VR content (VR user point-of-view vs. static camera), eight participants marked that both methods worked well, and one favored the VR guide's point-of-view.  
The trainer's activity was also observed as positive: eight agreed that the trainer provided enough opportunities for asking questions and seven agreed and two were neutral that the trainer interacted enough with the learners. Three participants found the hand-raising activity to be unnecessary and suggested allowing free voice interaction between trainer and learners without this formality. The speed of the trainer's actions was found to be suitable by eight participants; only one pointed out that it was too slow. From other suggestions, participants mentioned that pop-ups with information (training embedded) should stay longer on the screen and that trainers' speech _\"could be added to the automatic instruction as well\"_ (P4).  
Finally, the participants left the following supportive comments, shown in Table 2, to express the benefits and application case for the asymmetric VR approach.